Where I grew up in Missouri, we had a phrase for getting in someone's face about something. It was called telling someone "how to eat cabbage."
My wife reports that the version she heard while growing up in Alabama was telling someone "how the hog ate the cabbage."
Typical of Southerners. They always embellish things a little.
Anyway, yours truly is a bit fed up with the corrupt Republicans who run Shelby County and send bogus legal documents threatening to seize my house and have their deputies leave repeated harassing phone calls that have nothing to do with official or lawful business.
So I decided to tell someone "how the hog ate the cabbage." (See, I'm officially a Southerner now. I've adopted the Alabama version.)
I decided to start with Shelby County Clerk Mary Harris, who you might call the "Queen of the Jack Booted Thugs." After all, it was Ms. Harris who signed the writ of execution dated September 21, 2007, that started a long line of threats to seize my property.
Actually, I'm not so much interested in telling Ms. Harris "how the hog ate the cabbage." She's been around the Shelby County Courthouse a long time, and I'm sure she's well aware that it's a corrupt cesspool. But she benefits from the cesspool, making a nice state salary with nice state benefits, so she keeps her mouth shut and sends out documents that she probably knows are bogus.
More than anything, I wanted to try a psychological experiment on Ms. Harris. I've met Ms. Harris a time or two, and on the surface, she seems like a perfectly nice person. She impresses you as someone who has a conscience.
But I get the feeling that even relatively "good people" check their consciences at the door when they enter the Shelby County Courthouse for official duty. So I wanted to see if we could determine whether Ms. Harris has a conscience in her role as Shelby County Clerk. Do small matters like "due process of law," "equal protection," and "civil rights" mean anything to her? And how will she respond when confronted with clear evidence that she is involved in a clear scheme to violate someone's "constitutional rights"? How will that realization affect her, given that she almost certainly self-identifies as a "conservative" and "patriotic" person? In short, does Mary Harris have a soul?
Don't know if we will get answers to those questions. But here is my missive to Mary Harris. It spells out quite clearly what is going on among Republicans in Shelby County, Alabama. Let's see if Ms. Harris cares to respond.
--------------------------------
Ms. Harris:
I am in receipt of a writ of execution that you issued on Sept. 21, 2007, I assume based upon application by attorney William E. Swatek.
Subsequent to receipt of this writ, I received a notice of levy from Shelby County Sheriff Chris Curry, along with a notice of sheriff's sale, notifying me that my home (which is co-owned by my wife, not to mention our mortgage company) is going to be sold at auction on April 7 to satisfy a "judgment" in favor of Mr. Swatek's client, Mike McGarity.
I have a number of concerns about these documents and the events that led up to them:
* Rule 69 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a writ of execution and notice of levy be accompanied by a "notice of right to claim exemptions." I've never received such a notice as required by law. Therefore, any action you or Sheriff Curry instigate is invalid under the law and is a violation of my rights to due process.
* Code of Alabama 6-9-211 requires that a certificate of judgment be recorded before a lien, execution, or levy can be carried out. I've received no indication that such a certificate has been recorded. Again, any action you or Sheriff Curry instigate is invalid by law and is a violation of my rights to due process.
* The judgment itself, upon which your writ is based, is void because my rights to due process were butchered by Judges J. Michael Joiner and G. Dan Reeves. (Greene v. Connelly, 628 So. 2d 346, Ala. 1993). Anyone with a beginner's knowledge of the law could look at the McGarity v. Shuler case file and see that Judges Joiner and Reeves repeatedly acted corruptly in my case, and that Mr. Swatek (who has an almost 30-year history of violating basic ethics of the legal profession) was the beneficiary of these corrupt rulings. I realize that you and Sheriff Curry are not the overseers of the judges and Mr. Swatek. But their actions have caused both you and Sheriff Curry to take actions that violate my civil rights. Perhaps you aren't concerned about that. In fact, I've not seen evidence that anyone at the Shelby County Courthouse cares about citizens' civil rights. But from where I sit, it looks like these judges and Mr. Swatek are leading you down a dangerous path.
* By the way, just so you know, since this "judgment" was entered some 3 1/2 years ago, Mr. Swatek has never called me or sent me a letter asking me to pay it. Evidently, even he knows it's bogus. But he used you and Sheriff Curry to start making threats at seizing my property. These threats did not begin until I started writing a blog last summer. I find that quite curious. Thought you might find it curious as well. Evidence strongly suggests you are being used in order to shut down a blog.
* The writ of execution in this matter has a check by the box that says "Exemptions as to Personal Property waived." What does this mean and who instructed you to write this? I've never waived any exemptions to my property. And as I said, Mr. Swatek has never even asked for the judgment to be paid and evidently has never taken the simple step of having a certificate of judgment recorded.
* Perhaps you and Sheriff Curry are as cavalier about constitutional rights as the judges are in Shelby County. But I thought I should give you fair warning that there are numerous problems with the threatening documents you have sent me. They are unlawful, invalid, unconstitutional, and fraudulent. Maybe that doesn't matter to you. But you can rest assured it matters to me.
Roger Shuler
Monday, March 31, 2008
The Schnauzer Greaseball Awards
In the wake of Don Siegelman's release from federal prison, a couple of entities have earned our first annual Legal Schnauzer Greaseball Awards. For short, we call our awards "The Greasies."
The first "Greasy" goes, not surprisingly, to The Birmingham News for its Sunday editorial on the Siegelman case. Get a load of this paragraph:
In our view, Siegelman's actions leading to this case didn't serve the taxpayers' interests at all, and his justifications of those actions reflect a terribly cynical and sad view of political service. His actions as part of this criminal case haven't always reflected well on him, either.
The News is so full of feces with this it's hard to know where to start. But let's take a crack at it:
* What actions didn't serve the taxpayer's well? We're talking about a criminal case here. Any policy or administrative differences the News' honchos might have had with Siegelman are irrelevant. The whole point of the editorial is to comment on the latest activity in the criminal case. And the key fact is this: Six of the seven counts for which Siegelman was convicted involved a transaction with former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy. The seventh count was for obstruction of justice, which is a "piggyback" charge dependant on other charges. Therefore, the conviction was based totally on the Siegelman/Scrushy transaction. All of the "actions" the News seems to be referring to--the warehouse stuff, the landfill stuff, the motorcycle stuff--were rejected by the jury. So what was wrong with the Siegelman/Scrushy transaction? Under the law--and the News never seems to find the time to mention what the law on bribery and honest-services mail fraud actually says--not a thing. Scrushy clearly was qualified to serve on the Certificate of Need Board and had served on the board under three previous governors. We know he had made campaign contributions to at least one of those other governors, Republican Fob James. So again, how did Siegelman not serve taxpayers' well?
* What is cynical and sad about Siegelman's justifications for his actions? First of all, Siegelman isn't justifying anything. He's having to defend himself in criminal court. But consider these questions: Is it cynical and sad for Republican Governor Bob Riley to get a sweetheart contribution from Huntsville supporters, who then get massive amounts of state dollars for a biotech deal? Is it cynical and sad that numerous Riley cronies, including his children, have done quite well with no-bid state contracts? Is it cynical and sad that Riley evidently violated state campaign-finance laws, and none of the state's daily newspapers has looked into it? Is it cynical and sad that evidence strongly suggests that someone electronically manipulated the vote totals that put Bob Riley in office in the first place? Is it cynical and sad that when Montgomery insurance executive John Goff files a lawsuit against Riley for helping to ruin one of Goff's businesses, the governor apparently pushes to have Goff investigated by federal authorities? Is it cynical and sad that Riley has well established ties to felons Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon, and that GOP presidential candidate John McCain took steps to hide these ties, and the News has written nothing substantive about it?
* His actions as part of this criminal case haven't always reflected well on him, either? Oh, really? What on earth does this mean? Sounds like the Newsies are upset that Siegelman didn't roll over and play dead for their puppet judge, Mark Fuller. What inappropriate actions did Siegelman take during the course of the criminal case--other than try to defend himself? The News doesn't tell us, and I have no idea what they are talking about.
As for our second "Greasy," it goes to the Alabama Republican Party and its chief, Mike Hubbard. When Siegelman was released from federal prison pending appeal, there was no reason for Hubbard to say anything. The ruling didn't involve Hubbard or the Alabama Republican Party.
But since Hubbard was asked for comment, he could have shown some respect for the seriousness of the issues involved by saying something like: "Former Governor Siegelman is entitled to a full and fair appeal. We will continue to watch his case with interest." Or he could have said, "This matter does not involve the Alabama Republican Party, so I would prefer not to comment."
But no, Hubbard couldn't do that. Instead he had to issue one of the most tasteless statements I've seen from a public official in quite some time. Here is what Hubbard had to say:
"The former Governor's release pending appeal does not change the conviction by a jury of his peers. It would be premature to turn this development into anything other than a formality."
The first "Greasy" goes, not surprisingly, to The Birmingham News for its Sunday editorial on the Siegelman case. Get a load of this paragraph:
In our view, Siegelman's actions leading to this case didn't serve the taxpayers' interests at all, and his justifications of those actions reflect a terribly cynical and sad view of political service. His actions as part of this criminal case haven't always reflected well on him, either.
The News is so full of feces with this it's hard to know where to start. But let's take a crack at it:
* What actions didn't serve the taxpayer's well? We're talking about a criminal case here. Any policy or administrative differences the News' honchos might have had with Siegelman are irrelevant. The whole point of the editorial is to comment on the latest activity in the criminal case. And the key fact is this: Six of the seven counts for which Siegelman was convicted involved a transaction with former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy. The seventh count was for obstruction of justice, which is a "piggyback" charge dependant on other charges. Therefore, the conviction was based totally on the Siegelman/Scrushy transaction. All of the "actions" the News seems to be referring to--the warehouse stuff, the landfill stuff, the motorcycle stuff--were rejected by the jury. So what was wrong with the Siegelman/Scrushy transaction? Under the law--and the News never seems to find the time to mention what the law on bribery and honest-services mail fraud actually says--not a thing. Scrushy clearly was qualified to serve on the Certificate of Need Board and had served on the board under three previous governors. We know he had made campaign contributions to at least one of those other governors, Republican Fob James. So again, how did Siegelman not serve taxpayers' well?
* What is cynical and sad about Siegelman's justifications for his actions? First of all, Siegelman isn't justifying anything. He's having to defend himself in criminal court. But consider these questions: Is it cynical and sad for Republican Governor Bob Riley to get a sweetheart contribution from Huntsville supporters, who then get massive amounts of state dollars for a biotech deal? Is it cynical and sad that numerous Riley cronies, including his children, have done quite well with no-bid state contracts? Is it cynical and sad that Riley evidently violated state campaign-finance laws, and none of the state's daily newspapers has looked into it? Is it cynical and sad that evidence strongly suggests that someone electronically manipulated the vote totals that put Bob Riley in office in the first place? Is it cynical and sad that when Montgomery insurance executive John Goff files a lawsuit against Riley for helping to ruin one of Goff's businesses, the governor apparently pushes to have Goff investigated by federal authorities? Is it cynical and sad that Riley has well established ties to felons Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon, and that GOP presidential candidate John McCain took steps to hide these ties, and the News has written nothing substantive about it?
* His actions as part of this criminal case haven't always reflected well on him, either? Oh, really? What on earth does this mean? Sounds like the Newsies are upset that Siegelman didn't roll over and play dead for their puppet judge, Mark Fuller. What inappropriate actions did Siegelman take during the course of the criminal case--other than try to defend himself? The News doesn't tell us, and I have no idea what they are talking about.
As for our second "Greasy," it goes to the Alabama Republican Party and its chief, Mike Hubbard. When Siegelman was released from federal prison pending appeal, there was no reason for Hubbard to say anything. The ruling didn't involve Hubbard or the Alabama Republican Party.
But since Hubbard was asked for comment, he could have shown some respect for the seriousness of the issues involved by saying something like: "Former Governor Siegelman is entitled to a full and fair appeal. We will continue to watch his case with interest." Or he could have said, "This matter does not involve the Alabama Republican Party, so I would prefer not to comment."
But no, Hubbard couldn't do that. Instead he had to issue one of the most tasteless statements I've seen from a public official in quite some time. Here is what Hubbard had to say:
"The former Governor's release pending appeal does not change the conviction by a jury of his peers. It would be premature to turn this development into anything other than a formality."
Both sentences put Hubbard's ignorance on full display. A jury's verdict is only as good as the judicial rulings and jury instructions it is given. If a judge puts garbage in, the jury is going to spew garbage out. Hubbard evidently has no clue about criminal or civil procedure. And the second sentence? Siegelman's release came because trial judge Mark Fuller failed miserably in his efforts to justify, in writing, Siegelman's imprisonment pending appeal. Fuller's memorandum opinion puts the judge's incompetence and bias on glaring display. And yet Hubbard considers that a mere formality.
Mike Hubbard has all the class of a truckstop hooker. Republicans should be embarrassed to be represented by an individual who spews such nonsense.
On 60 Minutes, Blackouts and Karl's House
Cooking Up More Goodies at 60 Minutes
Those of us who were transfixed by 60 Minutes' story on the Don Siegelman prosecution apparently can look forward to a Part II, perhaps this Sunday.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, reports that 60 Minutes is busily preparing a second installment on the Siegelman case. The timing couldn't be better, given Siegelman's release from federal prison last week.
Horton wonders, only slightly in jest, if Part II will be marred by the kind of "technical difficulties" that occurred during Part I at a Huntsville, Alabama, television station. Horton cites a Washington Independent story that shows how unlikely it was that such a blackout could occur accidentally.
Getting the Scoop on Karl's Digs
Horton provides a fascinating behind-the-scenes account of the Raw Story piece on Karl Rove's fancy digs in Rosemary Beach, Florida.
Horton asked Larisa Alexandrovna how she and colleague Lindsay Beyerstein got the remarkable photographs that accompanied their story. You won't want to miss Alexandrovna's cloak-and-dagger tale.
Particularly interesting are comments from the locals, who are none too thrilled that King Karl is in their presence. It seems Turd Blossom is none too popular with his neighbors.
Now to be fair, I'm not too popular with one of my neighbors, Mike McGarity. But McGarity, the charming fellow who filed a bogus lawsuit against me, has at least eight criminal convictions in his background. He's exactly the kind of fellow that I do not want to be popular with.
Something tells me there are not too many criminal convictions among Rove's well-heeled neighbors. Perhaps there is a criminal conviction in King Karl's future, though.
Those of us who were transfixed by 60 Minutes' story on the Don Siegelman prosecution apparently can look forward to a Part II, perhaps this Sunday.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, reports that 60 Minutes is busily preparing a second installment on the Siegelman case. The timing couldn't be better, given Siegelman's release from federal prison last week.
Horton wonders, only slightly in jest, if Part II will be marred by the kind of "technical difficulties" that occurred during Part I at a Huntsville, Alabama, television station. Horton cites a Washington Independent story that shows how unlikely it was that such a blackout could occur accidentally.
Getting the Scoop on Karl's Digs
Horton provides a fascinating behind-the-scenes account of the Raw Story piece on Karl Rove's fancy digs in Rosemary Beach, Florida.
Horton asked Larisa Alexandrovna how she and colleague Lindsay Beyerstein got the remarkable photographs that accompanied their story. You won't want to miss Alexandrovna's cloak-and-dagger tale.
Particularly interesting are comments from the locals, who are none too thrilled that King Karl is in their presence. It seems Turd Blossom is none too popular with his neighbors.
Now to be fair, I'm not too popular with one of my neighbors, Mike McGarity. But McGarity, the charming fellow who filed a bogus lawsuit against me, has at least eight criminal convictions in his background. He's exactly the kind of fellow that I do not want to be popular with.
Something tells me there are not too many criminal convictions among Rove's well-heeled neighbors. Perhaps there is a criminal conviction in King Karl's future, though.
Is Mukasey Serious About Public Corruption?
Here's is something I've learned from my dealings with corrupt Republicans: They invariably view the general public as stupid.
They think they can say the most outrageous things, and nobody will question it. The latest GOPer to try this is U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey.
Harper's Scott Horton, who certainly is no dim bulb, does not let Mukasey get away with it.
Mukasey last week told an audience in San Francisco that he has seen no evidence that the Bush Justice Department allows politics to enter into public corruption probes. This evidently did not go over well with a skeptical audience in California. And Horton tries his best to suppress guffaws.
Mukasey's comments came at roughly the same time the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals was announcing that former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman should be released pending appeal. Horton notes that Mukasey is more than just ignorant of what is going on around him. He is taking clear steps to stonewall any efforts to get at the truth.
To his credit, Mukasey does make this important statement: "A corruption investigation that is motivated by partisan politics is just corruption by another name." In other words, federal crime fighters who conduct their business in this way are themselves committing federal crimes.
But is Mukasey's department serious about attacking public corruption?
I would invite readers to try this little test. Go to the FBI's special Web page for reporting tips about public corruption. Send them a brief message about the Legal Schnauzer case and ask them to look into it. Feel free to send them a link to a post from the blog. This might be a good one from recent days.
See if you get a response from Mukasey's crime fighters. If you do, please let me know. I will be shocked beyond comprehension.
They think they can say the most outrageous things, and nobody will question it. The latest GOPer to try this is U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey.
Harper's Scott Horton, who certainly is no dim bulb, does not let Mukasey get away with it.
Mukasey last week told an audience in San Francisco that he has seen no evidence that the Bush Justice Department allows politics to enter into public corruption probes. This evidently did not go over well with a skeptical audience in California. And Horton tries his best to suppress guffaws.
Mukasey's comments came at roughly the same time the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals was announcing that former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman should be released pending appeal. Horton notes that Mukasey is more than just ignorant of what is going on around him. He is taking clear steps to stonewall any efforts to get at the truth.
To his credit, Mukasey does make this important statement: "A corruption investigation that is motivated by partisan politics is just corruption by another name." In other words, federal crime fighters who conduct their business in this way are themselves committing federal crimes.
But is Mukasey's department serious about attacking public corruption?
I would invite readers to try this little test. Go to the FBI's special Web page for reporting tips about public corruption. Send them a brief message about the Legal Schnauzer case and ask them to look into it. Feel free to send them a link to a post from the blog. This might be a good one from recent days.
See if you get a response from Mukasey's crime fighters. If you do, please let me know. I will be shocked beyond comprehension.
Fox 6 Goes Behind Scenes of Siegelman Story
Kudos to reporter Sharea Harris and Fox 6 News in Birmingham for shining a spotlight on the role bloggers and other "new" media types have played in keeping the Don Siegelman story before the public.
Harris interviewed Glynn Wilson of Locust Fork World News and your Legal Schnauzer correspondent on Sunday afternoon, and the story aired at 10 p.m. You can check out the Fox 6 story here.
Folks at Fox 6 have expressed interest in following up with other angles connected to the Siegelman story--and perhaps other justice-related issues in Alabama. We certainly welcome further inquiries.
This was my first chance to meet Glynn Wilson, the "Founder of the Fork," live and in person. He must have the coolest blogging pad on the planet. He calls it "The Bunker," and that's exactly what it looks like.
Maybe if we ever get the State of Alabama straightened out--and get justice for a number of folks who seriously need it--Wilson will be able to host a "Bunker Bash" to celebrate. I suspect that would be a good time.
Harris interviewed Glynn Wilson of Locust Fork World News and your Legal Schnauzer correspondent on Sunday afternoon, and the story aired at 10 p.m. You can check out the Fox 6 story here.
Folks at Fox 6 have expressed interest in following up with other angles connected to the Siegelman story--and perhaps other justice-related issues in Alabama. We certainly welcome further inquiries.
This was my first chance to meet Glynn Wilson, the "Founder of the Fork," live and in person. He must have the coolest blogging pad on the planet. He calls it "The Bunker," and that's exactly what it looks like.
Maybe if we ever get the State of Alabama straightened out--and get justice for a number of folks who seriously need it--Wilson will be able to host a "Bunker Bash" to celebrate. I suspect that would be a good time.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Siegelman Comes Out With Guns Blazing
Former Alabama Governor has been in prison for nine months. But now that he smells freedom, Siegelman also evidently smells blood. And his nose is leading him in the direction of Karl Rove.
To that, we here at Legal Schnauzer can only say, "Go get 'em, Governor."
Anyone thinking Siegelman might act with timidity upon his release was sorely mistaken.
Siegelman promptly told The New York Times' Adam Nossiter that Rove's fingerprints were "smeared all over the case." Gee Don, could you be a little more specific?
Steve Benen, at The Carpetbagger Report, has an excellent piece on Siegelman's statements and the weak response from a member of Rove's team.
Let's see how the Republicans like it when Siegelman isn't fighting with both hands tied behind his back.
To that, we here at Legal Schnauzer can only say, "Go get 'em, Governor."
Anyone thinking Siegelman might act with timidity upon his release was sorely mistaken.
Siegelman promptly told The New York Times' Adam Nossiter that Rove's fingerprints were "smeared all over the case." Gee Don, could you be a little more specific?
Steve Benen, at The Carpetbagger Report, has an excellent piece on Siegelman's statements and the weak response from a member of Rove's team.
Let's see how the Republicans like it when Siegelman isn't fighting with both hands tied behind his back.
A Response to Readers
A number of readers have been kind enough to express concerns about threats to seize and sell our house. Quite a few have asked thoughtful questions about what I'm facing.
I'm still in the process of conducting legal research on the topics of execution, levy, exemptions etc., so my knowledge is not complete. But I want to try to address some issues that folks have raised.
At the moment, I'm acting as my own lawyer, so I need to be careful about how much I say. But let me take a crack at shining some light on a pretty dark situation:
* Why not just pay the $1,525? Believe it or not, I've never been asked to pay the money. I don't know about you, but I generally don't go around begging people to take my money. Even if the judgment were legitimate, and it isn't, no one has asked me to pay it. Why? Because they don't want the money. They want me to stop blogging.
* What about a lawyer? I've contacted two or three lawyers in the Birmingham area who have known progressive leanings and were recommended to me by a fellow blogger. None of them have responded to my e-mail messages. Here's the reason, I think: Judges have frightening power over the livelihoods of lawyers. A corrupt judge could ruin a lawyer's business. I'm disappointed that these local attorneys have not responded to my inquiries, but I'm not surprised. And given the hot-potato nature of what I'm facing, I can't say I blame them for steering clear of it. Also, my impression is judges are like the mafia--they stick together. A lawyer might practice mainly in Jefferson County, but if he stands up to a corrupt judge in Shelby County, chances are the lawyer will pay at the hands of the corrupt judge's buddies in Jefferson County.
* Are you totally on your own? Well, I'm not sure. I've got some legal contacts outside the Birmingham area. Not sure if they will be able to help, but that is a possibility. The key legal issue, in my mind, is civil rights. To seize someone's house without providing due process of law is a serious civil rights violation. I'm hoping their is a lawyer out there who will see that as a case worth taking on.
* What about the ACLU? A number of folks have recommended the ACLU. I tried contacting the ACLU three or four years ago about judicial corruption, long before my house was threatened, and I never received a reply. A number of people around the country have told me they tried to get help from the ACLU in dealing with corrupt judges and got nothing. So I'm not high on the ACLU. I might try them one more time, but I'm not holding my breath.
* What about the press? There is some activity on that front, but I can't go into details at the moment. An Alabama journalist actually has shown some interest, but I'm not counting on anything there. If anyone shines a bright spotlight on this, I think it will have to come from outside the state.
* What about Congress? I'm definitely going to contact members of the House Judiciary Committee. If folks connected to Alice Martin are behind this, as I suspect, then it's a matter of federal interest. Either way, I believe federal crimes have been committed in this effort to defraud me out of my house. I intend to contact Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) and Steve Cohen (D-TN), who have shown particular interest in the Don Siegelman and Paul Minor cases, the subjects of numerous posts here at Legal Schnauzer.
* What about a fund to collect the money and pay off the judgment? A number of people have suggested this, and believe me, my wife and I appreciate it. But I don't think there is a need to go that route. And as I stated earlier, these folks aren't interested in money. It's about the blog, and I have no intention of giving up Legal Schnauzer.
* What's next? Without going into too many details, I know the next legal step I need to take--and it doesn't require a lawyer. That should put a stop to this nuttiness, but seeing as how we're talking about Republican judges in Alabama, it probably will only delay things a while. Even if they auction off my house, there appear to be steps that can be taken to get it back. And it appears that a period of time must pass before anyone can actually lay claim to my rights to my own house. There's also the matter of my wife, who is joint owner of the house, and our mortgage company, which certainly has an interest.
* Just how far will these nutjobs go? That's a good question, and I don't know the answer. My wife and I have discussed whether or not we need to be prepared to defend ourselves physically. Are sheriff's deputies going to break into our house and try to throw me, or both of us, out? Are we going to come home some evening to find our house blockaded by sheriff's deputies, so we can't get in it? Are Shelby County authorities willing to put someone's life at risk in order to carry out their little scheme? I've dealt with these folks for about eight years now, and I wouldn't put anything past them. It has occurred to me that they might throw me in jail for some trumped-up charge (contempt of court?). They did it to Don Siegelman; no reason they wouldn't try it with me. I can only say that my wife and I are asking ourselves some serious questions and considering some serious steps to defend ourselves.
I'm still in the process of conducting legal research on the topics of execution, levy, exemptions etc., so my knowledge is not complete. But I want to try to address some issues that folks have raised.
At the moment, I'm acting as my own lawyer, so I need to be careful about how much I say. But let me take a crack at shining some light on a pretty dark situation:
* Why not just pay the $1,525? Believe it or not, I've never been asked to pay the money. I don't know about you, but I generally don't go around begging people to take my money. Even if the judgment were legitimate, and it isn't, no one has asked me to pay it. Why? Because they don't want the money. They want me to stop blogging.
* What about a lawyer? I've contacted two or three lawyers in the Birmingham area who have known progressive leanings and were recommended to me by a fellow blogger. None of them have responded to my e-mail messages. Here's the reason, I think: Judges have frightening power over the livelihoods of lawyers. A corrupt judge could ruin a lawyer's business. I'm disappointed that these local attorneys have not responded to my inquiries, but I'm not surprised. And given the hot-potato nature of what I'm facing, I can't say I blame them for steering clear of it. Also, my impression is judges are like the mafia--they stick together. A lawyer might practice mainly in Jefferson County, but if he stands up to a corrupt judge in Shelby County, chances are the lawyer will pay at the hands of the corrupt judge's buddies in Jefferson County.
* Are you totally on your own? Well, I'm not sure. I've got some legal contacts outside the Birmingham area. Not sure if they will be able to help, but that is a possibility. The key legal issue, in my mind, is civil rights. To seize someone's house without providing due process of law is a serious civil rights violation. I'm hoping their is a lawyer out there who will see that as a case worth taking on.
* What about the ACLU? A number of folks have recommended the ACLU. I tried contacting the ACLU three or four years ago about judicial corruption, long before my house was threatened, and I never received a reply. A number of people around the country have told me they tried to get help from the ACLU in dealing with corrupt judges and got nothing. So I'm not high on the ACLU. I might try them one more time, but I'm not holding my breath.
* What about the press? There is some activity on that front, but I can't go into details at the moment. An Alabama journalist actually has shown some interest, but I'm not counting on anything there. If anyone shines a bright spotlight on this, I think it will have to come from outside the state.
* What about Congress? I'm definitely going to contact members of the House Judiciary Committee. If folks connected to Alice Martin are behind this, as I suspect, then it's a matter of federal interest. Either way, I believe federal crimes have been committed in this effort to defraud me out of my house. I intend to contact Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) and Steve Cohen (D-TN), who have shown particular interest in the Don Siegelman and Paul Minor cases, the subjects of numerous posts here at Legal Schnauzer.
* What about a fund to collect the money and pay off the judgment? A number of people have suggested this, and believe me, my wife and I appreciate it. But I don't think there is a need to go that route. And as I stated earlier, these folks aren't interested in money. It's about the blog, and I have no intention of giving up Legal Schnauzer.
* What's next? Without going into too many details, I know the next legal step I need to take--and it doesn't require a lawyer. That should put a stop to this nuttiness, but seeing as how we're talking about Republican judges in Alabama, it probably will only delay things a while. Even if they auction off my house, there appear to be steps that can be taken to get it back. And it appears that a period of time must pass before anyone can actually lay claim to my rights to my own house. There's also the matter of my wife, who is joint owner of the house, and our mortgage company, which certainly has an interest.
* Just how far will these nutjobs go? That's a good question, and I don't know the answer. My wife and I have discussed whether or not we need to be prepared to defend ourselves physically. Are sheriff's deputies going to break into our house and try to throw me, or both of us, out? Are we going to come home some evening to find our house blockaded by sheriff's deputies, so we can't get in it? Are Shelby County authorities willing to put someone's life at risk in order to carry out their little scheme? I've dealt with these folks for about eight years now, and I wouldn't put anything past them. It has occurred to me that they might throw me in jail for some trumped-up charge (contempt of court?). They did it to Don Siegelman; no reason they wouldn't try it with me. I can only say that my wife and I are asking ourselves some serious questions and considering some serious steps to defend ourselves.
A Look at the House Karl Built
Raw Story has a fascinating look at the house former presidential advisor Karl Rove has built in Rosemary Beach, Florida.
Reporters Larisa Alexandrova and Lindsay Beyerstein give us an up-close view of Karl's compound and significant insight into the kind of dirty work he might be up to there.
They particularly reference the house's proximity to Alabama and draw ties to Rove's longstanding, and ongoing, involvement with our state's politics.
What is Rove up to Rosemary Beach? One critic says Rove probably sees himself as a "freelance Dr. Evil." It must be financially lucrative, the critic says, to not be tied anymore to the Bushies or any particular candidate. What fun that must be for Turd Blossom.
"Have darkness, will travel," the critic says.
Reporters Larisa Alexandrova and Lindsay Beyerstein give us an up-close view of Karl's compound and significant insight into the kind of dirty work he might be up to there.
They particularly reference the house's proximity to Alabama and draw ties to Rove's longstanding, and ongoing, involvement with our state's politics.
What is Rove up to Rosemary Beach? One critic says Rove probably sees himself as a "freelance Dr. Evil." It must be financially lucrative, the critic says, to not be tied anymore to the Bushies or any particular candidate. What fun that must be for Turd Blossom.
"Have darkness, will travel," the critic says.
The Not-So-Subtle Tricks of Jack Booted Thugs
We recently posted about the myriad legal complications, both civil and criminal, that Shelby County authorities could face from their efforts to unlawfully seize and auction my house.
But that isn't stopping the jack booted thugs from pushing forward. We had a message on our home phone the other night from Deputy Bubba Caldell, informing us that our house was about to be sold and asking if we had "worked things out" with our criminally inclined neighbor (Mike McGarity) and his ethically challenged lawyer (Bill Swatek).
I wanted to say, "Work out what, Dude?"
There is nothing to work out. The "judgment" against me of $1,525 was obtained by methods that run contrary to this document we call the U.S. Constitution. Legally speaking, the judgment is worth no more than a used hot-dog wrapper--probably less. Under the law, Mike McGarity is not entitled to one dime from me, and his corrupt lawyer knows it. But Bill Swatek and his judicial cronies are uncomfortable with the painful truths I'm writing on this blog, so they are trying to use their bogus judgment to shut me up.
Here's a lesson I learned as a child: If you don't want the snake to bite you, don't poke it with a stick.
Bill Swatek and his gang evidently never learned that lesson. Also, they misidentified their prey. They thought I was a cute little bunny rabbit that they could abuse relentlessly without getting hurt. Well, I like to think I'm a fairly warm and fuzzy guy most of the time. But like many of you, I can turn into a rattlesnake if I'm poked often enough and hard enough. And I can turn into a rattlesnake real quick if you poke at the people and things that matter most to me--my wife, my pets, my home.
Here's the thing I've learned about bullies: They never think you are going to punch them back. That's stupid, I know, but if they were smart, they wouldn't be bullies.
Bill Swatek and his judicial buddies never dreamed I would suspect I was being cheated. And they didn't suspect I would go to my local law library and conduct the research necessary to prove I was being cheated. Then they never dreamed I would be able to figure out that my own lawyers were cheating me and covering up for the corrupt judges. They never dreamed I'd have the cojones to fire my lawyers and represent myself.
And most of all, I'm sure it never occurred to them that I would use the power of a blog to expose them to the world--and that my blog would attract the attention of folks like Scott Horton at Harper's, Larisa Alexandrovna at Raw Story, and Rep. Steve Cohen in the U.S. Congress.
So Swatek & Co. want to shut me up. And they are using their usual tactics--they lie and cheat.
How? I've noted the two documents I've received from the Shelby County Sheriff's Office threatening to seize my property. The first, a writ of execution, listed both of our cars and our house as property to be seized to satisfy a "judgment." The second, a notice of levy, said our house would be sold at auction to satisfy the judgment.
But here's the thing: According to Rule 69 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure (ARCP), both of these documents must be accompanied by what is called a "Notice of Right to Claim Exemptions."
This is ARCP form 92, which evidently is not available on the Web, so I can't show it to you. But I've read it, and it's a brief, to-the-point document. In its 4-5 paragraphs, it advises recipients three times to contact a lawyer if they have questions about their rights to claim certain property exempt from execution.
Let me repeat: This document that they had to send me tells people three times to contact a lawyer.
I think I'm beginning to figure out why they didn't include this document. If I had contacted a lawyer, one with at least three brain cells, he or she would have told me, "Are these people nuts? They can't auction off your house to satisfy a debt of $1,525!"
But I've got news for Swatek & Company. I didn't need a lawyer to tell me that; I figured it out myself. And I will spell out the applicable law for Legal Schnauzer readers.
So what do we learn from this?
* The evidence is mounting that these threats to seize my house are actually about shutting down this blog. Even a lawyer as bad as Bill Swatek knows he can't legally have my house seized to satisfy a debt of $1,525--even if the debt was legitimate, which it isn't.
* Am I home free? Of course not. Just because the law says Shelby County officials cannot sell my house, doesn't mean they won't do it--or try to do it. Heck, under the law, the lawsuit against me had to be dismissed (summary judgment) in summer of 2001. But from summer 2001 to summer 2004, corrupt judges Mike Joiner and Dan Reeves let it move forward, repeatedly violating the law and committing federal crimes in the process.
This is an arrogant bunch, particularly when they know they are protected by the corrupt Bush Justice Department. But with the Bush Reign of Error thankfully winding down, will Alabama's corrupt GOP judges be quite so arrogant?
We're about to find out.
But that isn't stopping the jack booted thugs from pushing forward. We had a message on our home phone the other night from Deputy Bubba Caldell, informing us that our house was about to be sold and asking if we had "worked things out" with our criminally inclined neighbor (Mike McGarity) and his ethically challenged lawyer (Bill Swatek).
I wanted to say, "Work out what, Dude?"
There is nothing to work out. The "judgment" against me of $1,525 was obtained by methods that run contrary to this document we call the U.S. Constitution. Legally speaking, the judgment is worth no more than a used hot-dog wrapper--probably less. Under the law, Mike McGarity is not entitled to one dime from me, and his corrupt lawyer knows it. But Bill Swatek and his judicial cronies are uncomfortable with the painful truths I'm writing on this blog, so they are trying to use their bogus judgment to shut me up.
Here's a lesson I learned as a child: If you don't want the snake to bite you, don't poke it with a stick.
Bill Swatek and his gang evidently never learned that lesson. Also, they misidentified their prey. They thought I was a cute little bunny rabbit that they could abuse relentlessly without getting hurt. Well, I like to think I'm a fairly warm and fuzzy guy most of the time. But like many of you, I can turn into a rattlesnake if I'm poked often enough and hard enough. And I can turn into a rattlesnake real quick if you poke at the people and things that matter most to me--my wife, my pets, my home.
Here's the thing I've learned about bullies: They never think you are going to punch them back. That's stupid, I know, but if they were smart, they wouldn't be bullies.
Bill Swatek and his judicial buddies never dreamed I would suspect I was being cheated. And they didn't suspect I would go to my local law library and conduct the research necessary to prove I was being cheated. Then they never dreamed I would be able to figure out that my own lawyers were cheating me and covering up for the corrupt judges. They never dreamed I'd have the cojones to fire my lawyers and represent myself.
And most of all, I'm sure it never occurred to them that I would use the power of a blog to expose them to the world--and that my blog would attract the attention of folks like Scott Horton at Harper's, Larisa Alexandrovna at Raw Story, and Rep. Steve Cohen in the U.S. Congress.
So Swatek & Co. want to shut me up. And they are using their usual tactics--they lie and cheat.
How? I've noted the two documents I've received from the Shelby County Sheriff's Office threatening to seize my property. The first, a writ of execution, listed both of our cars and our house as property to be seized to satisfy a "judgment." The second, a notice of levy, said our house would be sold at auction to satisfy the judgment.
But here's the thing: According to Rule 69 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure (ARCP), both of these documents must be accompanied by what is called a "Notice of Right to Claim Exemptions."
This is ARCP form 92, which evidently is not available on the Web, so I can't show it to you. But I've read it, and it's a brief, to-the-point document. In its 4-5 paragraphs, it advises recipients three times to contact a lawyer if they have questions about their rights to claim certain property exempt from execution.
Let me repeat: This document that they had to send me tells people three times to contact a lawyer.
I think I'm beginning to figure out why they didn't include this document. If I had contacted a lawyer, one with at least three brain cells, he or she would have told me, "Are these people nuts? They can't auction off your house to satisfy a debt of $1,525!"
But I've got news for Swatek & Company. I didn't need a lawyer to tell me that; I figured it out myself. And I will spell out the applicable law for Legal Schnauzer readers.
So what do we learn from this?
* The evidence is mounting that these threats to seize my house are actually about shutting down this blog. Even a lawyer as bad as Bill Swatek knows he can't legally have my house seized to satisfy a debt of $1,525--even if the debt was legitimate, which it isn't.
* Am I home free? Of course not. Just because the law says Shelby County officials cannot sell my house, doesn't mean they won't do it--or try to do it. Heck, under the law, the lawsuit against me had to be dismissed (summary judgment) in summer of 2001. But from summer 2001 to summer 2004, corrupt judges Mike Joiner and Dan Reeves let it move forward, repeatedly violating the law and committing federal crimes in the process.
This is an arrogant bunch, particularly when they know they are protected by the corrupt Bush Justice Department. But with the Bush Reign of Error thankfully winding down, will Alabama's corrupt GOP judges be quite so arrogant?
We're about to find out.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Justice on the March in Siegelman Saga
We've all heard that the wheels of justice turn slowly. But with Don Siegelman's release today from federal prison, we finally see signs that the wheels are turning in the right direction.
The healing of our justice department is likely to take years. But perhaps some positive momentum has started.
Writers in both the "new" and "old" media have thoughts on where we are headed:
* Glynn Wilson at Locust Fork News says he does not look for Siegelman to see the interior of a prison cell again. He also has classic quotes from whistleblower Jill Simpson about the tasteless remarks by some GOP leaders regarding the Siegelman release.
* Adam Nossiter of The New York Times notes the vague nature of the 11th Circuit's order and has thoughts from national experts on justice issues. (As expected, the 11th Circuit lets trial judge Mark Fuller off easy--for now.)
* Tommy Stevenson, of the Tuscaloosa News, has a splendid post that asks this important question: Why, after holding numerous state posts over a long political career, did Don Siegelman suddenly become corrupt as governor? Hmmm, wouldn't have anything to do with Karl Rove's rise to power on George W. Bush's coattails would it? Also, Stevenson notes the sour grapes dished up by state GOP head Mike Hubbard.
The healing of our justice department is likely to take years. But perhaps some positive momentum has started.
Writers in both the "new" and "old" media have thoughts on where we are headed:
* Glynn Wilson at Locust Fork News says he does not look for Siegelman to see the interior of a prison cell again. He also has classic quotes from whistleblower Jill Simpson about the tasteless remarks by some GOP leaders regarding the Siegelman release.
* Adam Nossiter of The New York Times notes the vague nature of the 11th Circuit's order and has thoughts from national experts on justice issues. (As expected, the 11th Circuit lets trial judge Mark Fuller off easy--for now.)
* Tommy Stevenson, of the Tuscaloosa News, has a splendid post that asks this important question: Why, after holding numerous state posts over a long political career, did Don Siegelman suddenly become corrupt as governor? Hmmm, wouldn't have anything to do with Karl Rove's rise to power on George W. Bush's coattails would it? Also, Stevenson notes the sour grapes dished up by state GOP head Mike Hubbard.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
GOP Attack Dogs Are Still Baring Fangs
Amidst the rejoicing over Don Siegelman's release from federal prison, folks who care about justice should not forget that Republican attack dogs are still at work.
In fact, they are at work in my own back yard--literally.
I was perusing the latest issue of the Shelby County Reporter the other day, when my eyes zoned in on this classified ad.
I usually approach the classifieds with a detached air, only mildly interested. But my brain quickly became attached when I spotted this legal notice:
LEGAL NOTICE
SHERIFF'S SALE
********
By virtue of Writ of Execution issued out of District Court of Shelby County, Alabama, and to me directed whereby I am commanded to make the amount of a certain judgment recently obtained against Roger Shuler in favor of Mike McGarity out of the goods, chattels, lands and tenements of the said Roger Shuler, I have levied on the following property, to wit:Lot 4 block 15 Broken Bow South book 11 page 82.Therefore, according to said command, I shall expose for sale at public auction, all the right, title and interest of the above named Roger Shuler to the above described property, on the 7th day of April, 2008, at 12:00 noon, on the front steps of the Shelby County Courthouse in Columbiana, Alabama. Dated at Columbiana this 29th day of February, 2008. CHRIS CURRY Sheriff of Shelby County, Alabama. Shelby County Reporter. March 19, 26 nd April 2, 2008
"Hey," I thought, "that's my house!"
I felt like Lloyd Bridges in Airplane. "Looks like I picked a bad day to give up sniffing glue."
But there it was in bold print. The GOPers who run Alabama in the Age of Rove are serious about selling off my house at auction. Never mind that the judgment found against me was reached through unlawful and unconstitutional means. Never mind that the writ of execution and notice of levy leading up to this "sheriff's sale" were unlawfully issued and are thus invalid. Never mind that my rights under that thing we call the U.S. Constitution have been battered like one of Mike Tyson's early foes. These jokers actually plan to steal my house.
Under the Code of Alabama, a sheriff's sale must be advertised three times in a general-circulation newspaper prior to the big day. So this was ad number one.
And I like the quaint "old west" touches to the notice. My house is going to be sold at "high noon" on the "courthouse steps." Gosh, I'm going to be expecting tumbleweeds to be blowing down the street. Maybe Matt Dillon and Miss Kitty will come out of the saloon across the street to save the day!
My wife and I have been trying to put out legal brush fires for about eight years now, thanks to the corrupt GOPers who run both our county and our state. This conflagration is a little more unsettling than the others.
How are we going to handle it? Well, our thinking caps are on. And we're open to suggestions.
In fact, they are at work in my own back yard--literally.
I was perusing the latest issue of the Shelby County Reporter the other day, when my eyes zoned in on this classified ad.
I usually approach the classifieds with a detached air, only mildly interested. But my brain quickly became attached when I spotted this legal notice:
LEGAL NOTICE
SHERIFF'S SALE
********
By virtue of Writ of Execution issued out of District Court of Shelby County, Alabama, and to me directed whereby I am commanded to make the amount of a certain judgment recently obtained against Roger Shuler in favor of Mike McGarity out of the goods, chattels, lands and tenements of the said Roger Shuler, I have levied on the following property, to wit:Lot 4 block 15 Broken Bow South book 11 page 82.Therefore, according to said command, I shall expose for sale at public auction, all the right, title and interest of the above named Roger Shuler to the above described property, on the 7th day of April, 2008, at 12:00 noon, on the front steps of the Shelby County Courthouse in Columbiana, Alabama. Dated at Columbiana this 29th day of February, 2008. CHRIS CURRY Sheriff of Shelby County, Alabama. Shelby County Reporter. March 19, 26 nd April 2, 2008
"Hey," I thought, "that's my house!"
I felt like Lloyd Bridges in Airplane. "Looks like I picked a bad day to give up sniffing glue."
But there it was in bold print. The GOPers who run Alabama in the Age of Rove are serious about selling off my house at auction. Never mind that the judgment found against me was reached through unlawful and unconstitutional means. Never mind that the writ of execution and notice of levy leading up to this "sheriff's sale" were unlawfully issued and are thus invalid. Never mind that my rights under that thing we call the U.S. Constitution have been battered like one of Mike Tyson's early foes. These jokers actually plan to steal my house.
Under the Code of Alabama, a sheriff's sale must be advertised three times in a general-circulation newspaper prior to the big day. So this was ad number one.
And I like the quaint "old west" touches to the notice. My house is going to be sold at "high noon" on the "courthouse steps." Gosh, I'm going to be expecting tumbleweeds to be blowing down the street. Maybe Matt Dillon and Miss Kitty will come out of the saloon across the street to save the day!
My wife and I have been trying to put out legal brush fires for about eight years now, thanks to the corrupt GOPers who run both our county and our state. This conflagration is a little more unsettling than the others.
How are we going to handle it? Well, our thinking caps are on. And we're open to suggestions.
Siegelman: Free at Last, Free at Last
Just last night here at Legal Schnauzer, we wrote a post that included this passage about the Don Siegelman case:
The 11th Circuit required trial judge Mark Fuller to justify in writing his decision for denying Siegelman bond pending appeal. We showed here that Fuller did not even come close to meeting his burden under the law. The facts are simple: By the trial judge's own words, Don Siegelman must be freed pending appeal. But he is looking at probably another 11 months in prison while the 11th Circuit does nothing about Fuller's remarkably weak memorandum opinion.
Here's a question: Why did the 11th Circuit ask Fuller to write the opinion if they weren't going to act on it?
Turns out the 11th Circuit was going to act all along--the justices were just taking their sweet time. Action finally came today when the court issued a four-page ruling releasing Siegelman from federal prison pending appeal.
The announcement set off much rejoicing among Siegelman supporters and many Democrats and progressives. But the news should have been welcomed by people of all political stripes. Whether you believe Siegelman was innocent or guilty, whether you think his prosecution was honest or tainted by politics, this much is clear: Under the law, he never should have been imprisoned while his appeal was in progress. That Siegelman spent the past nine months in federal prison is a disgrace to our justice system. The rules that allow a federal district judge to take such action need to be examined.
Word of Siegelman's release was not the only good news for folks who care about justice. Earlier in the day, a story broke that the House Judiciary Committee asked the Justice Department to temporarily release Siegelman, allowing him to testify before Congress in early May. Turns out a temporary release will not be necessary. But the prospect of Siegelman testifying under oath before Congress has got to be tightening some conservative jockey shorts this evening.
So what does all of this mean? Well, here are a few Schnauzer thoughts as we near the end of a most eventful day in the history of American justice:
* I haven't seen the 11th Circuit's four-page order, but my guess is that it will let trial judge Mark Fuller off easy. But that should not keep the public, and hopefully the press, from asking serious questions about Fuller's fitness for the bench. As we noted here in a January 5 post, Fuller's memorandum opinion on Siegelman's imprisonment clearly showed that the "emperor has no clothes." Fuller exposed himself as a glorified con man who, after raising suspicions about his conduct, was desperately trying to cover his posterior. If I, without the first day of law school, could see what he was doing, I can only wonder about the honest impressions of folks who have formal legal training. Today's news should be a major step toward an investigation of U.S. Judge Mark Fuller--an inquiry that, if it is serious, should lead to his removal from the bench. And let's hope investigators look closely for criminal activity. My guess is it won't be hard to find.
* Citizens must remember that Don Siegelman was only one of at least four political prisoners in the Age of Rove. The three others--attorney Paul Minor and former Mississippi judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield--remain in federal prison for crimes they did not commit. How do we know they didn't commit the crimes? Because we spent 25-plus posts proving it, and our "Mississippi Churning" series can be reviewed here. In terms of political prosecution, the Minor case is every bit as bad as the Siegelman case. Let's hope the nation and Congress turn their attention to the Minor defendants, who by law must be freed pending appeal.
* Siegelman's release is a testament to the power of alternative media. Without the work of blogger/journalists like Scott Horton of Harper's, Glynn Wilson of Locust Fork News, and Larisa Alexandrovna of at-Largely/Raw Story/Huffington Post/Hustler, Siegelman would have little hope of being released any time soon. Without the work of Pam Miles and her e-mail listees, Siegelman would have remained in prison for the foreseeable future. It's impossible to overstate the impact of CBS and its 60 Minutes story on the Siegelman case. But that "old media" story would not have happened without the work of folks working in the "new media."
* Siegelman's release is just one step in what will be an arduous journey toward restoring a badly broken justice system in this country--a system that is broken at both the federal and the state level. In fact, I would propose that problems in our state courts are far worse than those in the federal system--and that's a scary thought.
* If our justice system is going to be repaired, it will take committed, firm-minded Democrats and whatever honest, objective Republicans are out there. I believe such Republicans--people like Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana--do exist. But the Republican Party in general has become like the Britney Spears of politics. The party needs to go into rehab, probably for eight to 12 years at least, to cleanse itself of some debilitating demons. That means Democrats must act like adults. It means Democrats must not, at any point, become arrogant. And it means that Democrats, using all legal and honorable means necessary, must win the 2008 presidential election. The Republican Party, in its current state, cannot be trusted with power. And our country cannot afford four or eight years of John McCain.
* With the economy in recession, the Middle East in a mess, and huge ice chunks breaking off of Antarctica, we've got lots of problems. But whoever becomes the Democratic nominee for president must move justice near the top of the heap for issues to be addressed. Our state and federal justice systems are infested with corrupt judges and prosecutors--and I feel certain they aren't all Republicans. Democrats need to act like the Orkin man, shining flashlights into dark corners and putting out roach motels to catch all the creepy-crawlies lurking about. If a few Democrats get caught in the boxes, good. Get 'em out. It's up to Democrats to act with maturity and objectivity. God knows Republicans aren't up to that task at the moment.
The 11th Circuit required trial judge Mark Fuller to justify in writing his decision for denying Siegelman bond pending appeal. We showed here that Fuller did not even come close to meeting his burden under the law. The facts are simple: By the trial judge's own words, Don Siegelman must be freed pending appeal. But he is looking at probably another 11 months in prison while the 11th Circuit does nothing about Fuller's remarkably weak memorandum opinion.
Here's a question: Why did the 11th Circuit ask Fuller to write the opinion if they weren't going to act on it?
Turns out the 11th Circuit was going to act all along--the justices were just taking their sweet time. Action finally came today when the court issued a four-page ruling releasing Siegelman from federal prison pending appeal.
The announcement set off much rejoicing among Siegelman supporters and many Democrats and progressives. But the news should have been welcomed by people of all political stripes. Whether you believe Siegelman was innocent or guilty, whether you think his prosecution was honest or tainted by politics, this much is clear: Under the law, he never should have been imprisoned while his appeal was in progress. That Siegelman spent the past nine months in federal prison is a disgrace to our justice system. The rules that allow a federal district judge to take such action need to be examined.
Word of Siegelman's release was not the only good news for folks who care about justice. Earlier in the day, a story broke that the House Judiciary Committee asked the Justice Department to temporarily release Siegelman, allowing him to testify before Congress in early May. Turns out a temporary release will not be necessary. But the prospect of Siegelman testifying under oath before Congress has got to be tightening some conservative jockey shorts this evening.
So what does all of this mean? Well, here are a few Schnauzer thoughts as we near the end of a most eventful day in the history of American justice:
* I haven't seen the 11th Circuit's four-page order, but my guess is that it will let trial judge Mark Fuller off easy. But that should not keep the public, and hopefully the press, from asking serious questions about Fuller's fitness for the bench. As we noted here in a January 5 post, Fuller's memorandum opinion on Siegelman's imprisonment clearly showed that the "emperor has no clothes." Fuller exposed himself as a glorified con man who, after raising suspicions about his conduct, was desperately trying to cover his posterior. If I, without the first day of law school, could see what he was doing, I can only wonder about the honest impressions of folks who have formal legal training. Today's news should be a major step toward an investigation of U.S. Judge Mark Fuller--an inquiry that, if it is serious, should lead to his removal from the bench. And let's hope investigators look closely for criminal activity. My guess is it won't be hard to find.
* Citizens must remember that Don Siegelman was only one of at least four political prisoners in the Age of Rove. The three others--attorney Paul Minor and former Mississippi judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield--remain in federal prison for crimes they did not commit. How do we know they didn't commit the crimes? Because we spent 25-plus posts proving it, and our "Mississippi Churning" series can be reviewed here. In terms of political prosecution, the Minor case is every bit as bad as the Siegelman case. Let's hope the nation and Congress turn their attention to the Minor defendants, who by law must be freed pending appeal.
* Siegelman's release is a testament to the power of alternative media. Without the work of blogger/journalists like Scott Horton of Harper's, Glynn Wilson of Locust Fork News, and Larisa Alexandrovna of at-Largely/Raw Story/Huffington Post/Hustler, Siegelman would have little hope of being released any time soon. Without the work of Pam Miles and her e-mail listees, Siegelman would have remained in prison for the foreseeable future. It's impossible to overstate the impact of CBS and its 60 Minutes story on the Siegelman case. But that "old media" story would not have happened without the work of folks working in the "new media."
* Siegelman's release is just one step in what will be an arduous journey toward restoring a badly broken justice system in this country--a system that is broken at both the federal and the state level. In fact, I would propose that problems in our state courts are far worse than those in the federal system--and that's a scary thought.
* If our justice system is going to be repaired, it will take committed, firm-minded Democrats and whatever honest, objective Republicans are out there. I believe such Republicans--people like Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana--do exist. But the Republican Party in general has become like the Britney Spears of politics. The party needs to go into rehab, probably for eight to 12 years at least, to cleanse itself of some debilitating demons. That means Democrats must act like adults. It means Democrats must not, at any point, become arrogant. And it means that Democrats, using all legal and honorable means necessary, must win the 2008 presidential election. The Republican Party, in its current state, cannot be trusted with power. And our country cannot afford four or eight years of John McCain.
* With the economy in recession, the Middle East in a mess, and huge ice chunks breaking off of Antarctica, we've got lots of problems. But whoever becomes the Democratic nominee for president must move justice near the top of the heap for issues to be addressed. Our state and federal justice systems are infested with corrupt judges and prosecutors--and I feel certain they aren't all Republicans. Democrats need to act like the Orkin man, shining flashlights into dark corners and putting out roach motels to catch all the creepy-crawlies lurking about. If a few Democrats get caught in the boxes, good. Get 'em out. It's up to Democrats to act with maturity and objectivity. God knows Republicans aren't up to that task at the moment.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Presidential Politics and Jack Booted Thugs
Thoughts on a Republican fear campaign in Alabama . . .
What has certain GOPers in Alabama so revved up that they are threatening to unlawfully seize and auction off my house in a thinly disguised attempt to shut down this blog?
If there is one thing I've learned through my legal ordeal, it is this: It's hard to think along with corrupt people. I suspect that's because a pretty high percentage of corrupt folks are sociopaths. (Regular readers know that I enjoy an occasional stab at dimestore psychology, so here we go again.)
While I certainly count myself among the "great unwashed," the flawed and sinful, I'm not sure I've figured out how to think like a sociopath. (And I would just as soon keep it that way.) But let's take a shot at trying to figure out why Alabama GOPers are suddenly so interested in shutting down our humble blog.
Presidential Politics and the Legal Schnauzer
We're running the risk of getting way too big for our britches by insinuating that our humble blog has anything to do with the 2008 presidential election. But we're trying to think like corrupt people. So follow me for a moment.
What has certain GOPers in Alabama so revved up that they are threatening to unlawfully seize and auction off my house in a thinly disguised attempt to shut down this blog?
If there is one thing I've learned through my legal ordeal, it is this: It's hard to think along with corrupt people. I suspect that's because a pretty high percentage of corrupt folks are sociopaths. (Regular readers know that I enjoy an occasional stab at dimestore psychology, so here we go again.)
While I certainly count myself among the "great unwashed," the flawed and sinful, I'm not sure I've figured out how to think like a sociopath. (And I would just as soon keep it that way.) But let's take a shot at trying to figure out why Alabama GOPers are suddenly so interested in shutting down our humble blog.
Presidential Politics and the Legal Schnauzer
We're running the risk of getting way too big for our britches by insinuating that our humble blog has anything to do with the 2008 presidential election. But we're trying to think like corrupt people. So follow me for a moment.
I noted in a previous post that the attempt to seize my house seems tied to certain topics I was writing about. Is it also tied to national political events?
Let's consider that for a moment. I think corrupt Alabama Republicans have been pretty secure in their belief that, somehow, the GOP would maintain its grip on the White House in 2008, allowing them to remain free from scrutiny by the U.S. Justice Department. My guess is they were convinced that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee, and she would bring baggage to the table that they could use to their electoral advantage. And I would guess they figured that the GOP would come up with a nominee who could get the Religious Right and ultra-conservatives excited.
But what has happened? Barack Obama has taken the lead over Clinton in the Democratic race, and it appears that he won't be such an inviting target to attack. And the GOP nominee is John McCain, who raises little enthusiasm among religious conservatives and even less from right-wing mouthpieces like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.
Has it occurred to corrupt Alabama GOPers that John McCain, 71 years old and without great support inside his own party, might be toast against a youthful, charismatic opponent such as Barack Obama? Has that influenced their thinking on my case--and perhaps numerous other cases in Alabama that could draw the attention of a Democratic U.S. attorney?
Is that why they are trying to threaten me into submission?
Again, let's consider our timeline:
February 5, 2008--John McCain wins big on Super Tuesday and becomes the frontrunner for the Republican nomination.
February 8, 2008--My wife and I receive a notice of levy from Shelby County Sheriff Chris Curry, stating that our house will be sold at auction to satisfy an alleged "judgment" in the amount of $1,525.
March 4, 2008--McCain wins Ohio, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Texas to clinch the GOP nomination.
March 18, 2008--A legal notice appears in the Shelby County Reporter, stating that our house will be exposed for sale at auction. Such notice is required by Alabama law--so these folks are serious.
I see an interesting pattern here. The better John McCain's presidential chances become, the more serious Alabama GOPers become about seizing and selling my house.
But that's not the only pattern I see. Let's consider one more.
60 Minutes and Legal Schnauzer
It has been widely reported that Alabama and national Republicans made quite an effort to silence the 60 Minutes report on the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. The Bush White House and U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) reportedly applied serious pressure to CBS.
My guess is that corrupt Alabama Republicans were convinced this pressure campaign would work.
Keep this in mind about many GOPers, particularly the white, male, Southern variety: They are an arrogant bunch. Their party has been ascendant in the South since 1964 and been dominant since 1980. That kind of electoral success will make you complacent and comfy. I suspect Alabama Republicans were convinced the Siegelman story would never see the light of day. They were wrong about that.
Did that affect their thinking on the corrupt activities that run rampant in Alabama state courts? Again, let's consider the timeline, at least in my case:
February 24, 2008--60 Minutes airs its story on Don Siegelman prosecution.
February 29, 2008--My wife and I receive notice of a Sheriff's Sale, telling us our house will be auctioned off at noon, April 7, on the Shelby County Courthouse steps.
Is this a coincidence? Maybe.
But I'm wondering if corrupt Alabama Republicans are considering the possibility that the U.S. might have a real attorney general in charge of the Justice Department, come early 2009. What if someone took a close look at the federal crimes that have been committed in Alabama state courts during George W. Bush's reign of error?
I smile when I think these thoughts. But I temper them with several doses of reality:
* Never underestimate the ability of Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The Dems have plenty of chances to screw this up.
* Never underestimate the ability of Republicans to steal elections.
* Never underestimate the ability of white, middle-class Americans to allow their race-based fears to overcome their economic interests and their better judgment, resulting in votes for the GOP.
* Even if Obama or Clinton claims the White House, never assume that a Democratic attorney general would have the guts or the support needed to go after the criminals who have turned our justice system into a sewer.
On Siegelman, Exxon, Religion, and Such
Tell us again: Why is Don Siegelman still in prison?
We receive word today that the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has issued deadlines for briefs in the appeal of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy.
The bottom line: Oral arguments are not likely to be heard until late 2008, at the earliest. And God only knows when a ruling might come.
Siegelman and Scrushy already have served nine months in federal prison, and it looks like they are facing a minimum of another 11 months. That's at least 20 months in prison for crimes that they almost certainly did not commit.
Heck of a justice system, isn't it?
Here's an even more galling point to ponder: The 11th Circuit required trial judge Mark Fuller to justify in writing his decision for denying Siegelman bond pending appeal. We showed here that Fuller did not even come close to meeting his burden under the law. The facts are simple: By the trial judge's own words, Don Siegelman must be freed pending appeal. But he is looking at probably another 11 months in prison while the 11th Circuit does nothing about Fuller's remarkably weak memorandum opinion.
Here's a question: Why did the 11th Circuit ask Fuller to write the opinion if they weren't going to act on it?
What message is the 11th Circuit sending? Better to wrongfully keep Siegelman in prison for at least 11 more months than to embarrass a federal judge.
Folsom finally gets his due
Sure was nice of Republican Gov. Bob Riley to have Lt. Gov. Jim Folsom at a press conference yesterday about a bill to raise taxes on companies that pump natural gas from offshore in Alabama.
It was particularly nice since Folsom, a Democrat, came up with the idea--one which Riley has blatantly stolen for several days.
"This is bipartisan," Folsom said. "We feel like we're here proposing the right thing and what's in the best interest of the people of Alabama."
Said Riley: "What we are not willing to have happen is that we give this natural gas away."
Of course, "Slick Riley" was perfectly willing to not say a peep when the Alabama Supreme Court let ExxonMobil get away with $3.6 billion worth of fraud. Evidently no mention of that at the press event.
Just what we need: Another Roy Moore
Alabama still is trying to live down the guffaws drawn from around the country by former Chief Justice Roy Moore and his Ten Commandments monument.
Now we have another state judge who doesn't seem to get the minor notion of separating church and state. This time it's Covington County Circuit Judge M. Ashley McKathan, who told some 100 people in his courtroom to gather in a prayer circle.
This is not the first time McKathan has tried to mix his religion with his role as a public official.
Here is the thing I've never understood about the Roy Moores and Ashley McKathans of the world: No one is forcing them to be a judge. They know up front that they can't mix their religion and their public position, but they do it anyway. They certainly are free to wear their religion on their sleeves, but not on the robes they wear as public officials. If religion was that important to them, why didn't they go to seminary instead of law school?
And the same thought comes to mind about the corrupt judges I've encountered at every turn. Hey, gang, no one is forcing you to be a judge. If you can't learn the law and apply it correctly, do something else.
Here's a thought about judges and lawyers: Why would someone who has no respect for the law go into the legal profession? The field is filled with some of the most lawless people you will ever meet--many of them wearing robes and going by the title "Your Honor."
Ironic world.
We receive word today that the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has issued deadlines for briefs in the appeal of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy.
The bottom line: Oral arguments are not likely to be heard until late 2008, at the earliest. And God only knows when a ruling might come.
Siegelman and Scrushy already have served nine months in federal prison, and it looks like they are facing a minimum of another 11 months. That's at least 20 months in prison for crimes that they almost certainly did not commit.
Heck of a justice system, isn't it?
Here's an even more galling point to ponder: The 11th Circuit required trial judge Mark Fuller to justify in writing his decision for denying Siegelman bond pending appeal. We showed here that Fuller did not even come close to meeting his burden under the law. The facts are simple: By the trial judge's own words, Don Siegelman must be freed pending appeal. But he is looking at probably another 11 months in prison while the 11th Circuit does nothing about Fuller's remarkably weak memorandum opinion.
Here's a question: Why did the 11th Circuit ask Fuller to write the opinion if they weren't going to act on it?
What message is the 11th Circuit sending? Better to wrongfully keep Siegelman in prison for at least 11 more months than to embarrass a federal judge.
Folsom finally gets his due
Sure was nice of Republican Gov. Bob Riley to have Lt. Gov. Jim Folsom at a press conference yesterday about a bill to raise taxes on companies that pump natural gas from offshore in Alabama.
It was particularly nice since Folsom, a Democrat, came up with the idea--one which Riley has blatantly stolen for several days.
"This is bipartisan," Folsom said. "We feel like we're here proposing the right thing and what's in the best interest of the people of Alabama."
Said Riley: "What we are not willing to have happen is that we give this natural gas away."
Of course, "Slick Riley" was perfectly willing to not say a peep when the Alabama Supreme Court let ExxonMobil get away with $3.6 billion worth of fraud. Evidently no mention of that at the press event.
Just what we need: Another Roy Moore
Alabama still is trying to live down the guffaws drawn from around the country by former Chief Justice Roy Moore and his Ten Commandments monument.
Now we have another state judge who doesn't seem to get the minor notion of separating church and state. This time it's Covington County Circuit Judge M. Ashley McKathan, who told some 100 people in his courtroom to gather in a prayer circle.
This is not the first time McKathan has tried to mix his religion with his role as a public official.
Here is the thing I've never understood about the Roy Moores and Ashley McKathans of the world: No one is forcing them to be a judge. They know up front that they can't mix their religion and their public position, but they do it anyway. They certainly are free to wear their religion on their sleeves, but not on the robes they wear as public officials. If religion was that important to them, why didn't they go to seminary instead of law school?
And the same thought comes to mind about the corrupt judges I've encountered at every turn. Hey, gang, no one is forcing you to be a judge. If you can't learn the law and apply it correctly, do something else.
Here's a thought about judges and lawyers: Why would someone who has no respect for the law go into the legal profession? The field is filled with some of the most lawless people you will ever meet--many of them wearing robes and going by the title "Your Honor."
Ironic world.
Sue Bell Cobb Tells it Like it is on ExxonMobil
I wrote in a post yesterday that Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb all but calls her Republican colleagues crooks in her rip-snorting dissent to the Alabama Supreme Court ruling that overturned almost all of a $3.6 billion jury verdict against ExxonMobil.
A reader asks if I could provide a link to the entire opinion, including Cobb's dissent. The answer is yes, indeed.
The opinion is available here, and I strongly encourage folks to read it. Be prepared: This is not the kind of stuff you take to the beach to read. But it's worth the effort to get through all 125 pages.
If you don't want to wade through the whole thing, be sure to read Cobb's dissent, which starts on page 100. Some things to look for:
* Cobb points out that the concurring opinion fails to follow some of the court's most basic precedents.
* Cobb points out that the majority conveniently ignores evidence that supports a finding of fraud.
* Cobb displays cojones of impressive proportions. It's nice to know at least one Democrat in Alabama has a pair.
If you really want to get into some heavy-duty reading on the ExxonMobil case, check out the Web site of the Mobile firm Cunningham & Bounds. The firm led the effort to get justice for the State of Alabama, and their Oil and Gas Litigation page is filled with interesting stuff.
One of my favorites is the jury verdict form. You can read it here. Note all of the zeroes on the final figure.
Another favorite is this story by Cathy Donelson from Business Alabama. It provides fascinating background that I have not seen elsewhere.
Particularly interesting is this section about Robert Macrory, the man who wrote the natural-gas lease that ExxonMobil so blatantly abused:
Robert Macrory, the DCNR attorney who developed the lease, is the former executive director of the Alabama Petroleum Council, a division of the American Petroleum Institute funded by ExxonMobil among others in the oil and gas industry.
At the time he was asked to craft a lease for Alabama offshore gas tracts in 1979, Macrory who later served as assistant commissioner of the Alabama Conservation Department, from 1995 to 1998-was the department's chief legal counsel.
His assignment was to develop a lease favorable to the state that would bring in the best return for the state's non-renewable offshore gas. "Most industry leases were just put on Farmer Brown's table," says Macrory, currently DCNR's deputy attorney general.
"All other forms-and those the subject of lawsuit after lawsuit across the country were lease forms prepared by the oil and gas industry to place the value at the wellhead where it is first severed from the earth," he says. "And each company had its own way of computing the value of gas at the wellhead."
After gathering leases from the federal government and from several states across the country, Macrory began reading gas and oil treatise and ran across a suggested model lease form first published in the "Nebraska Law Review,"
Macrory says he was impressed by the publisher's comments saying the lease treated the oil and gas company and the landowner fairly and equitably, basing royalty on gross proceeds.
He says the lease was recommended by an eminent University of Oklahoma oil and gas law professor who had written many books on the subject. "It had a provision that focused on gross receipts at the price received, disallowing all deductions," Macrory says.
Hmmm, "disallowing all deductions." Bet ExxonMobil didn't like that language, even though it signed the lease. So the company came up with fraudulent ways to get around it. And the Alabama Supreme Court let them get away with it.
Because of that, Alabamians are roughly $3.6 billion poorer. But hey, we've got a "conservative" court.
A reader asks if I could provide a link to the entire opinion, including Cobb's dissent. The answer is yes, indeed.
The opinion is available here, and I strongly encourage folks to read it. Be prepared: This is not the kind of stuff you take to the beach to read. But it's worth the effort to get through all 125 pages.
If you don't want to wade through the whole thing, be sure to read Cobb's dissent, which starts on page 100. Some things to look for:
* Cobb points out that the concurring opinion fails to follow some of the court's most basic precedents.
* Cobb points out that the majority conveniently ignores evidence that supports a finding of fraud.
* Cobb displays cojones of impressive proportions. It's nice to know at least one Democrat in Alabama has a pair.
If you really want to get into some heavy-duty reading on the ExxonMobil case, check out the Web site of the Mobile firm Cunningham & Bounds. The firm led the effort to get justice for the State of Alabama, and their Oil and Gas Litigation page is filled with interesting stuff.
One of my favorites is the jury verdict form. You can read it here. Note all of the zeroes on the final figure.
Another favorite is this story by Cathy Donelson from Business Alabama. It provides fascinating background that I have not seen elsewhere.
Particularly interesting is this section about Robert Macrory, the man who wrote the natural-gas lease that ExxonMobil so blatantly abused:
Robert Macrory, the DCNR attorney who developed the lease, is the former executive director of the Alabama Petroleum Council, a division of the American Petroleum Institute funded by ExxonMobil among others in the oil and gas industry.
At the time he was asked to craft a lease for Alabama offshore gas tracts in 1979, Macrory who later served as assistant commissioner of the Alabama Conservation Department, from 1995 to 1998-was the department's chief legal counsel.
His assignment was to develop a lease favorable to the state that would bring in the best return for the state's non-renewable offshore gas. "Most industry leases were just put on Farmer Brown's table," says Macrory, currently DCNR's deputy attorney general.
"All other forms-and those the subject of lawsuit after lawsuit across the country were lease forms prepared by the oil and gas industry to place the value at the wellhead where it is first severed from the earth," he says. "And each company had its own way of computing the value of gas at the wellhead."
After gathering leases from the federal government and from several states across the country, Macrory began reading gas and oil treatise and ran across a suggested model lease form first published in the "Nebraska Law Review,"
Macrory says he was impressed by the publisher's comments saying the lease treated the oil and gas company and the landowner fairly and equitably, basing royalty on gross proceeds.
He says the lease was recommended by an eminent University of Oklahoma oil and gas law professor who had written many books on the subject. "It had a provision that focused on gross receipts at the price received, disallowing all deductions," Macrory says.
Hmmm, "disallowing all deductions." Bet ExxonMobil didn't like that language, even though it signed the lease. So the company came up with fraudulent ways to get around it. And the Alabama Supreme Court let them get away with it.
Because of that, Alabamians are roughly $3.6 billion poorer. But hey, we've got a "conservative" court.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Who is Behind the Jack Booted Thugs, Part III
I suspect one other factor might be at play in Republican efforts to shut me up by threatening to unlawfully seize my house.
We've already noted that the threats seem to be tied to my blog posts about U.S. Attorney Alice Martin in the Northern District of Alabama and the Paul Minor prosecution in Mississippi.
But I suspect my reports about the Alabama Supreme Court's ruling in the ExxonMobil case also could be a factor. I first wrote about the case here, in a post titled "ExxonMobil 1, Alabama 0."
I'm hardly alone in writing about the ExxonMobil ruling, which overturned almost all of a $3.6 billion judgment against the oil giant and for the State of Alabama. Scott Horton, of Harper's, wrote an excellent piece about the case here. Even the mainstream press pulled its collective head out of the sand long enough to focus some attention on the decision.
But I probably have gone farther than most in stating my intentions to show why the Supreme Court ruling was unlawful, not just unfortunate. Here is one of several posts where I have said that I intend to show exactly how the ruling was unlawful.
With so much happening in the Siegelman case, and my own legal situation, I have put off the planned series on the ExxonMobil ruling. But it is still on the drawing board.
I should note this: It doesn't take a legal guru to figure out what the eight Republican justices did in ramrodding the ExxonMobil ruling. Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb, the lone Democrat on the court and the only dissenting vote on the ExxonMobile opinion, has already laid it out. You just have to read her dissent. In fact, Cobb all but calls her Republican colleagues crooks.
So when I get around to writing about the ExxonMobil ruling, I won't be doing any pathbreaking reporting. I'll just be shining light on Cobb's scathing dissent. And that's something Alabama GOPers would rather stay out of the spotlight.
Cobb's dissent is readily available on the Web. I just happen to be nosy enough to actually read the whole thing and write about it--hopefully in a way that regular Alabamians can understand.
This should show with stark clarity that regular citizens are not well served by our GOP-controlled courts. More importantly, it will show that criminals control our highest court. The ExxonMobil ruling is about as blatant an example of honest services mail fraud that one could imagine.
The honest services mail fraud statute (18 U.S. Code 1346) is largely responsible for former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman being in prison. It is largely responsible for Mississippi attorney Paul Minor and former state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield being in prison.
We have shown that the Minor defendants, without question, are innocent of the mail fraud (and the bribery) charges against them. I have not seen the transcript of the Siegelman case, so I can't come to any absolute conclusions. But the evidence strongly points to his innocence on the mail fraud charge--along with the bribery and obstruction of justice charges.
We've already noted that the threats seem to be tied to my blog posts about U.S. Attorney Alice Martin in the Northern District of Alabama and the Paul Minor prosecution in Mississippi.
But I suspect my reports about the Alabama Supreme Court's ruling in the ExxonMobil case also could be a factor. I first wrote about the case here, in a post titled "ExxonMobil 1, Alabama 0."
I'm hardly alone in writing about the ExxonMobil ruling, which overturned almost all of a $3.6 billion judgment against the oil giant and for the State of Alabama. Scott Horton, of Harper's, wrote an excellent piece about the case here. Even the mainstream press pulled its collective head out of the sand long enough to focus some attention on the decision.
But I probably have gone farther than most in stating my intentions to show why the Supreme Court ruling was unlawful, not just unfortunate. Here is one of several posts where I have said that I intend to show exactly how the ruling was unlawful.
With so much happening in the Siegelman case, and my own legal situation, I have put off the planned series on the ExxonMobil ruling. But it is still on the drawing board.
I should note this: It doesn't take a legal guru to figure out what the eight Republican justices did in ramrodding the ExxonMobil ruling. Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb, the lone Democrat on the court and the only dissenting vote on the ExxonMobile opinion, has already laid it out. You just have to read her dissent. In fact, Cobb all but calls her Republican colleagues crooks.
So when I get around to writing about the ExxonMobil ruling, I won't be doing any pathbreaking reporting. I'll just be shining light on Cobb's scathing dissent. And that's something Alabama GOPers would rather stay out of the spotlight.
Cobb's dissent is readily available on the Web. I just happen to be nosy enough to actually read the whole thing and write about it--hopefully in a way that regular Alabamians can understand.
This should show with stark clarity that regular citizens are not well served by our GOP-controlled courts. More importantly, it will show that criminals control our highest court. The ExxonMobil ruling is about as blatant an example of honest services mail fraud that one could imagine.
The honest services mail fraud statute (18 U.S. Code 1346) is largely responsible for former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman being in prison. It is largely responsible for Mississippi attorney Paul Minor and former state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield being in prison.
We have shown that the Minor defendants, without question, are innocent of the mail fraud (and the bribery) charges against them. I have not seen the transcript of the Siegelman case, so I can't come to any absolute conclusions. But the evidence strongly points to his innocence on the mail fraud charge--along with the bribery and obstruction of justice charges.
So we have four Democrats in prison for crimes they almost certainly did not commit. And the clearly guilty GOP justices on the Alabama Supreme Court? They remain cloaked in their black robes, with nary a glance of suspicion from the Bush Justice Department. That's what's called selective prosecution. And it's alive and well in Karl Rove's Alabama.
Could Republicans on our highest court really be crooks? If you read Sue Bell Cobb's dissent, as I have, you will come to this conclusion: Yes.
Goodness knows that is a message that Republicans don't want getting out there. Is it enough for them to try to shut me up by threatening to unlawfully seize my house? Wouldn't surprise me a bit.
Riley, McCain Dance an Unsavory Two Step
Kudos to Bob Martin, of The Montgomery Independent, for shining some much needed light on the ugly little dance that apparently has been going on for years between Alabama Governor Bob Riley and Republican presidential nominee John McCain.
Martin spotlights the efforts McCain took in the U.S. Senate to cover up Riley's ties to disgraced GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff. And what did McCain receive for the "Get Out of Jail Free" card he extended to Riley? Well, he got a hearty endorsement from the guv. Can we say quid pro quo?
Martin certainly can. And he says much more:
Riley has steadfastly denied that he has ever taken any gambling contributions, however, it is documented that (Michael) Scanlon funneled nearly three-quarters of a million to his campaign for governor in 2002 through the Republican Governor's Association and other political action committees. Scanlon's income was derived primarily from the scam he and Abramoff, along with with former National Christian Coalition Chairman Ralph Reed, were running against the Indian people.
In the late 1990s when he was in Congress Riley signed a fund raising letter for a nonprofit group closely tied to Abramoff's clients. The letter, written on behalf of the U.S. Family Network, announced a petition drive to block the Atmore-based Poarch Band of Creek Indians from building a casino in Alabama. That was potentially significant to Abramoff's tribal clients in Mississippi and Louisiana that already had casinos and did not want more competition.
Riley clearly had close ties to Abramoff and Scanlon, relationships that McCain helped cover up, but will Alabamians care the next time they vote in state or national elections?
The new revelation of the governor's familiarity with Abramoff and the instructions given him by these two jailbirds, ought to cause some curiosity in the big time Alabama media, but I doubt it. Nonetheless, the governor owes an answer to those citizens who are curious. According to sworn statements the gambling interests in Mississippi spent $13 million to elect Riley governor. That's a lot of dough. If Riley didn't get any, there must have been a lot lost somewhere along the way. McCain's huge lost e-mail favor didn't come without a quid pro quo and he got it last week with a resounding endorsement from our governor. The only question left is who arranged that deal?
I don't know who arranged that deal. But it's a safe bet that somewhere in the McCain/Riley Two Step you will find the footprints of Dax Swatek. He served as Riley's campaign manager in 2006 and was senior advisor in Alabama for McCain until the campaign ran into funding problems.
Dax Swatek's father, Pelham-based attorney William E. Swatek, just happens to be the attorney who filed a bogus lawsuit against me that led to the blog you are now reading. In fact, not long after this blog started, we posted about the curious connections both Dax Swatek and Bob Riley have had to "pro family" organizations with ties to . . . Jack Abramoff. Hmmm.
Martin spotlights the efforts McCain took in the U.S. Senate to cover up Riley's ties to disgraced GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff. And what did McCain receive for the "Get Out of Jail Free" card he extended to Riley? Well, he got a hearty endorsement from the guv. Can we say quid pro quo?
Martin certainly can. And he says much more:
Riley has steadfastly denied that he has ever taken any gambling contributions, however, it is documented that (Michael) Scanlon funneled nearly three-quarters of a million to his campaign for governor in 2002 through the Republican Governor's Association and other political action committees. Scanlon's income was derived primarily from the scam he and Abramoff, along with with former National Christian Coalition Chairman Ralph Reed, were running against the Indian people.
In the late 1990s when he was in Congress Riley signed a fund raising letter for a nonprofit group closely tied to Abramoff's clients. The letter, written on behalf of the U.S. Family Network, announced a petition drive to block the Atmore-based Poarch Band of Creek Indians from building a casino in Alabama. That was potentially significant to Abramoff's tribal clients in Mississippi and Louisiana that already had casinos and did not want more competition.
Riley clearly had close ties to Abramoff and Scanlon, relationships that McCain helped cover up, but will Alabamians care the next time they vote in state or national elections?
The new revelation of the governor's familiarity with Abramoff and the instructions given him by these two jailbirds, ought to cause some curiosity in the big time Alabama media, but I doubt it. Nonetheless, the governor owes an answer to those citizens who are curious. According to sworn statements the gambling interests in Mississippi spent $13 million to elect Riley governor. That's a lot of dough. If Riley didn't get any, there must have been a lot lost somewhere along the way. McCain's huge lost e-mail favor didn't come without a quid pro quo and he got it last week with a resounding endorsement from our governor. The only question left is who arranged that deal?
I don't know who arranged that deal. But it's a safe bet that somewhere in the McCain/Riley Two Step you will find the footprints of Dax Swatek. He served as Riley's campaign manager in 2006 and was senior advisor in Alabama for McCain until the campaign ran into funding problems.
Dax Swatek's father, Pelham-based attorney William E. Swatek, just happens to be the attorney who filed a bogus lawsuit against me that led to the blog you are now reading. In fact, not long after this blog started, we posted about the curious connections both Dax Swatek and Bob Riley have had to "pro family" organizations with ties to . . . Jack Abramoff. Hmmm.
Right Wingers Go After Another Blogger
I'm not the only progressive blogger being targeted by Alabama's right wingers these days.
My friend Robby Scott Hill at Novationeering posts that he recently received a rather sternly worded letter from a Riley Administration staffer, advising Hill that he was violating Alabama state law. What was Hill's grave misdeed?
According to O.J. Goodwyn, assistant attorney general and author of the letter, Hill had violated Alabama Code 41-13-6 by placing a document on his Web site that revealed the Social Security numbers of employees of the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.
"To avoid further action by this office," Goodwyn writes, "you should immediately redact or otherwise remove the Social Security numbers from any document that is available for public inspection."
There's only one problem with Goodwyn's warning: He doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.
You can check out Section 41-13-6 here:
Section 41-13-6: “Use of Social Security numbers on documents available for public inspection.
Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, a state department, licensing or regulatory board, agency, or commission is prohibited from placing or otherwise revealing the Social Security number of a person, including, but not limited to, full- or part-time employees thereof, on any document that is available for public inspection including, but not limited to, state personnel evaluation forms and any other forms related thereto unless otherwise required by law, without the express consent of the person with the number, or the consent of that person’s parent, custodian, legal guardian, or legal representative. The foregoing prohibition shall not apply when a federal or state agency makes a request for or releases a Social Security number for a legitimate government purpose, or pursuant to a federal or state statute, regulation, or federally funded program or pursuant to an administrative or judicial subpoena or order. Nothing in this section is intended to create or establish a new cause of action for damages in any court. Nothing in this section shall be construed as a waiver of sovereign or qualified immunity. This section shall not be applicable to a document originating with any court or taxing authority, any document that when filed by law constitutes a consensual or nonconsensual lien or security lien or security interest, or any record of judgment, conviction, eviction, or bankruptcy. If express consent to reveal a Social Security number has not been obtained, a state department or agency shall redact, remove, cover, or otherwise excise the Social Security number of any person from any document that is available for public inspection so that the remaining portion of the document.
It's quite obvious from reading the first sentence that this statute deals only with state agencies.
As Hill puts it:
Check out this silly misapplication of Alabama Code Section 41-13-6 which applies only to state agencies. Therefore, the State of Alabama lacks statutory authority to regulate my conduct in this regard, that is unless they were willing to rehire me. Ha!
What law school did Mr. Goodwyn graduate from? Is it the same place that passed out degrees to the corrupt Republicans who currently pack our courts? I'd say O.J. Goodwyn is about as dangerous around the law as another O.J. we are all familiar with.
Hill has been on the receiving end of a phenomenon I've experienced many times. I call it "Surely He Can't Read Simple English Sentences" Syndrome. It evidently afflicts large numbers of white, male GOPers, particularly those who live in the South (although I bet the condition can be found in other regions).
Maybe Hill and I can contact the National Institutes of Health and apply for a government grant to study this peculiar ailment. We both are becoming experts on the subject.
My friend Robby Scott Hill at Novationeering posts that he recently received a rather sternly worded letter from a Riley Administration staffer, advising Hill that he was violating Alabama state law. What was Hill's grave misdeed?
According to O.J. Goodwyn, assistant attorney general and author of the letter, Hill had violated Alabama Code 41-13-6 by placing a document on his Web site that revealed the Social Security numbers of employees of the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.
"To avoid further action by this office," Goodwyn writes, "you should immediately redact or otherwise remove the Social Security numbers from any document that is available for public inspection."
There's only one problem with Goodwyn's warning: He doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.
You can check out Section 41-13-6 here:
Section 41-13-6: “Use of Social Security numbers on documents available for public inspection.
Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, a state department, licensing or regulatory board, agency, or commission is prohibited from placing or otherwise revealing the Social Security number of a person, including, but not limited to, full- or part-time employees thereof, on any document that is available for public inspection including, but not limited to, state personnel evaluation forms and any other forms related thereto unless otherwise required by law, without the express consent of the person with the number, or the consent of that person’s parent, custodian, legal guardian, or legal representative. The foregoing prohibition shall not apply when a federal or state agency makes a request for or releases a Social Security number for a legitimate government purpose, or pursuant to a federal or state statute, regulation, or federally funded program or pursuant to an administrative or judicial subpoena or order. Nothing in this section is intended to create or establish a new cause of action for damages in any court. Nothing in this section shall be construed as a waiver of sovereign or qualified immunity. This section shall not be applicable to a document originating with any court or taxing authority, any document that when filed by law constitutes a consensual or nonconsensual lien or security lien or security interest, or any record of judgment, conviction, eviction, or bankruptcy. If express consent to reveal a Social Security number has not been obtained, a state department or agency shall redact, remove, cover, or otherwise excise the Social Security number of any person from any document that is available for public inspection so that the remaining portion of the document.
It's quite obvious from reading the first sentence that this statute deals only with state agencies.
As Hill puts it:
Check out this silly misapplication of Alabama Code Section 41-13-6 which applies only to state agencies. Therefore, the State of Alabama lacks statutory authority to regulate my conduct in this regard, that is unless they were willing to rehire me. Ha!
What law school did Mr. Goodwyn graduate from? Is it the same place that passed out degrees to the corrupt Republicans who currently pack our courts? I'd say O.J. Goodwyn is about as dangerous around the law as another O.J. we are all familiar with.
Hill has been on the receiving end of a phenomenon I've experienced many times. I call it "Surely He Can't Read Simple English Sentences" Syndrome. It evidently afflicts large numbers of white, male GOPers, particularly those who live in the South (although I bet the condition can be found in other regions).
Maybe Hill and I can contact the National Institutes of Health and apply for a government grant to study this peculiar ailment. We both are becoming experts on the subject.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Who is Behind the Jack Booted Thugs, Part II
Are there connections between U.S. Attorney Alice Martin, the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, and my own legal case?
Here's perhaps a better way to phrase it: Are there close connections between Republicans in Mississippi and Republicans in Alabama? The answer to that is a resounding yes.
Could they join hands to influence justice in the Minor case, the Don Siegelman case, even the Legal Schnauzer case? Let's see what the evidence tell us:
* Alice Martin has deep roots in Mississippi and the GOP. She is from the Magnolia State and received her law degree from the University of Mississippi. She recently refused to prosecute Mississippi lawyer Richard "Dickie" Scruggs, the brother-in-law of former U.S. Senator Trent Lott (R-MS). A federal judge had recommended that Scruggs be prosecuted for violating a court order, and Martin refused to do it. Scott Horton, of Harper's, wrote about the case here.
Bob Martin, of the Montgomery Independent, wrote a recent column with some interesting background information about Alice Martin. Martin's professional bio can be read here.
* Alabama Governor Bob Riley has well-reported ties to the Mississippi GOP. In fact, it has been reported that Riley used major financial support from the Mississippi Choctaw Indians to win the Alabama governor's office. And these funds were funneled through confessed felons Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon, a former Riley aide. Scott Horton, of Harper's, has a superb account of Bob Riley's many Mississippi connections here.
* Horton's piece mentions a name that is central to our Legal Schnauzer case. That is Dax Swatek, who was Riley's campaign manager in 2006 and whose father (William E. Swatek) filed the bogus lawsuit that led to my legal woes--and this blog. Dax Swatek grew up in Alabama and currently is based in Montgomery. But guess where he earned his law degree? The Mississippi College School of Law. Guess he wasn't smart enough to get into an Alabama law school.
So the Alabama/Mississippi/GOP hits just keep on comin'. And the evidence suggests that they are playing a role in the current threats to unlawfully seize my house.
I suspect one other factor might be at play. We'll touch on that next.
Here's perhaps a better way to phrase it: Are there close connections between Republicans in Mississippi and Republicans in Alabama? The answer to that is a resounding yes.
Could they join hands to influence justice in the Minor case, the Don Siegelman case, even the Legal Schnauzer case? Let's see what the evidence tell us:
* Alice Martin has deep roots in Mississippi and the GOP. She is from the Magnolia State and received her law degree from the University of Mississippi. She recently refused to prosecute Mississippi lawyer Richard "Dickie" Scruggs, the brother-in-law of former U.S. Senator Trent Lott (R-MS). A federal judge had recommended that Scruggs be prosecuted for violating a court order, and Martin refused to do it. Scott Horton, of Harper's, wrote about the case here.
Bob Martin, of the Montgomery Independent, wrote a recent column with some interesting background information about Alice Martin. Martin's professional bio can be read here.
* Alabama Governor Bob Riley has well-reported ties to the Mississippi GOP. In fact, it has been reported that Riley used major financial support from the Mississippi Choctaw Indians to win the Alabama governor's office. And these funds were funneled through confessed felons Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon, a former Riley aide. Scott Horton, of Harper's, has a superb account of Bob Riley's many Mississippi connections here.
* Horton's piece mentions a name that is central to our Legal Schnauzer case. That is Dax Swatek, who was Riley's campaign manager in 2006 and whose father (William E. Swatek) filed the bogus lawsuit that led to my legal woes--and this blog. Dax Swatek grew up in Alabama and currently is based in Montgomery. But guess where he earned his law degree? The Mississippi College School of Law. Guess he wasn't smart enough to get into an Alabama law school.
So the Alabama/Mississippi/GOP hits just keep on comin'. And the evidence suggests that they are playing a role in the current threats to unlawfully seize my house.
I suspect one other factor might be at play. We'll touch on that next.
Slick Willie, Slick Riley
Remember how Republicans used to delight in referring to President Clinton as "Slick Willie."
Well, I don't think Bill Clinton has anything on Bob Riley, Alabama's Republican governor. Just call him "Slick Riley."
Actually, Riley's not all that slick. In a battle of brains, Bill Clinton would blow him away like one of those No. 16 seeds in the NCAA Tournament. But thanks to a lapdog Alabama press, Bob Riley gets away with all kinds of not-so-slick maneuvers.
We brought one to our readers attention the other day. Riley actually is now trying to take political advantage of the Alabama Supreme Court's bogus ruling to overturn most of a $3.6 billion jury verdict against ExxonMobil and for the State of Alabama.
That's quite a feat considering that the Republican judges who ramrodded the ExxonMobil ruling are bought by the same corporate interests who bought Gov. Riley. Even worse, Riley didn't even attempt to have the case reheard in state court, and he didn't try to make political hay until the 90-day window for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court had passed. Now that nothing can be done about the fraudulent ruling, Riley's up in arms about ExxonMobil's actions.
That's like opening the bank for the robbers to get in and then shouting vengeance in the streets of Dodge City as the bad guys ride away with the townfolks' money. Pretty slick.
Here's something else that's slick. Riley doesn't lift a finger to correct the $3.6 billion screw job the Alabama Supreme Court administered to state citizens, but by golly, he wants to make sure teachers don't serve in the Alabama Legislature--especially since most of them are Democrats. Turns out Alabama is one of 20 states where there is no law that restricts lawmakers from holding other state or local government jobs. Wonder how many of those other 19 states have had school teacher/legislators arrested for federal crimes. My guess? Zero.
And as pointed out by Paul Hubbert, executive secretary of the Alabama Education Association, teachers aren't the only ones with potential conflicts. The same conflicts could occur for bankers, car dealers, lawyers, you name it. Of course, a lot of those folks probably would be Republicans, so that doesn't concern Gov. Riley.
Hubbert correctly points out that the solution would be to have a full-time legislature. But Alabamians have shown no indication they want to go that route, and God knows they don't want to pay to go that route.
Here's a question: If the idea of teacher/legislators is fine in 19 states, why is it a problem--even a possible federal crime--in Alabama?
In our previous post on Riley, we wondered how many Alabamians would buy his deceptive act without batting an eye. Well, the editorial staff of the Huntsville Times evidently bought it, saying Riley is courageous for suggesting that Alabama alter the way it taxes natural-gas exploration.
Courageous? For stealing Jim Folsom's idea?
Courageous? For saying nothing while Republican judges rape our coffers and then bemoaning the state of Alabama's finances?
Good grief. Sometimes I think this state is hopeless.
Well, I don't think Bill Clinton has anything on Bob Riley, Alabama's Republican governor. Just call him "Slick Riley."
Actually, Riley's not all that slick. In a battle of brains, Bill Clinton would blow him away like one of those No. 16 seeds in the NCAA Tournament. But thanks to a lapdog Alabama press, Bob Riley gets away with all kinds of not-so-slick maneuvers.
We brought one to our readers attention the other day. Riley actually is now trying to take political advantage of the Alabama Supreme Court's bogus ruling to overturn most of a $3.6 billion jury verdict against ExxonMobil and for the State of Alabama.
That's quite a feat considering that the Republican judges who ramrodded the ExxonMobil ruling are bought by the same corporate interests who bought Gov. Riley. Even worse, Riley didn't even attempt to have the case reheard in state court, and he didn't try to make political hay until the 90-day window for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court had passed. Now that nothing can be done about the fraudulent ruling, Riley's up in arms about ExxonMobil's actions.
That's like opening the bank for the robbers to get in and then shouting vengeance in the streets of Dodge City as the bad guys ride away with the townfolks' money. Pretty slick.
Here's something else that's slick. Riley doesn't lift a finger to correct the $3.6 billion screw job the Alabama Supreme Court administered to state citizens, but by golly, he wants to make sure teachers don't serve in the Alabama Legislature--especially since most of them are Democrats. Turns out Alabama is one of 20 states where there is no law that restricts lawmakers from holding other state or local government jobs. Wonder how many of those other 19 states have had school teacher/legislators arrested for federal crimes. My guess? Zero.
And as pointed out by Paul Hubbert, executive secretary of the Alabama Education Association, teachers aren't the only ones with potential conflicts. The same conflicts could occur for bankers, car dealers, lawyers, you name it. Of course, a lot of those folks probably would be Republicans, so that doesn't concern Gov. Riley.
Hubbert correctly points out that the solution would be to have a full-time legislature. But Alabamians have shown no indication they want to go that route, and God knows they don't want to pay to go that route.
Here's a question: If the idea of teacher/legislators is fine in 19 states, why is it a problem--even a possible federal crime--in Alabama?
In our previous post on Riley, we wondered how many Alabamians would buy his deceptive act without batting an eye. Well, the editorial staff of the Huntsville Times evidently bought it, saying Riley is courageous for suggesting that Alabama alter the way it taxes natural-gas exploration.
Courageous? For stealing Jim Folsom's idea?
Courageous? For saying nothing while Republican judges rape our coffers and then bemoaning the state of Alabama's finances?
Good grief. Sometimes I think this state is hopeless.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Who Is Behind the Jack Booted Thugs?
Who is behind the effort by authorities in Shelby County, Alabama, to unlawfully seize my house, which is jointly owned by my wife and me?
The central Shelby County figures in my legal case are Pelham attorney William E. Swatek (who has an almost 30-year record of unethical activities in the legal profession) and corrupt circuit judges J. Michael Joiner and G. Dan Reeves.
Evidence, however, suggests that efforts by "jack booted thugs" to steal my house are being driven by figures beyond Shelby County. Evidence also suggests that this effort has nothing to do with a desire to take our house or our cars--or otherwise satisfy an alleged "judgment" in the amount of $1,525. This clearly is about the blog you are now reading.
Let's look at what the evidence tells us:
* I started this blog in June 2007, and my first reference, by name, to corrupt Republican judges in Shelby County came on July 9, 2007. You can read the post here. The posts makes references to several potentially sensitive topics among local GOPers--corrupt Pelham lawyer William E. Swatek and his ties to GOP judges; connections that Swatek and Joiner have to Briarwood Presbyterian Church and said church's curious connections to my legal case; and efforts from the outset by The Birmingham News to cover up the story, probably because Briarwood is the home church of longtime News publisher Victor Hanson II. It's quite clear that Joiner, Swatek, and the News have been aware of my blog for some time. But I'm not sure they even knew about it in summer 2007. Even if they did, I'm not sure it bothered them all that much. Joiner, for example, probably didn't like being called a criminal. But I've seen no evidence that he's all that upset about it. One, he knows he's a criminal, so I'm not breaking any news to him. And he knows the local legal and media establishment will protect him, so I'm not sure he, or Swatek, are terribly concerned about Legal Schnauzer.
* What about Alabama Governor Bob Riley? We've thrown daggers his way, almost from the outset of Legal Schnauzer. My first reference to Riley and his connections to my case--through his campaign manager Dax Swatek, who is William E. Swatek's son--came on June 12, 2007. You can read that post here. We've gone on to call Riley's ethics into question on numerous occasions, and we've noted that it appears Alabama's GOP-controlled state courts are protecting Bill Swatek because his son has worked for Riley. I have reason to believe that Riley and his inner circle are aware of Legal Schnauzer and probably are none too pleased with it. But are they behind threats to steal my house? The evidence suggests, to me, that they probably are not--or at least, I don't think they are the primary force.
So who is behind it? Let's follow the evidence trail a little further.
What if we follow the timeline between what was being written on this blog and when threats to seize my property began? Will that tell us who is behind the "jack booted thugs" who have been making our lives quite unpleasant?
I think it will:
* In late July of 2007, I had a most interesting e-mail exchange with Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama. This came after I had sent her two lengthy "snail-mail" letters outlining criminal wrongdoing I had witnessed by multiple judges and at least one attorney in her district. Martin did not respond to my second letter, so after several months of waiting, I took a wild stab at e-mailing her. I didn't know what her e-mail address was, and to my knowledge, it isn't published anywhere on the Web. But I apparently guessed right because she responded. I identified myself by name and made reference to my letters and asked for an update about actions that had been taken regarding the information I had sent. As you will see shortly, Martin was quite evasive in answering my questions, and she clearly was not pleased that I wasn't readily accepting her responses.
* You also will notice that I did not inform her that I had a blog about my legal experiences. At the time, I didn't think the fact that I wrote a blog was relevant; I simply wanted to see that something was going to be done about the crimes I had witnessed. When I conducted some research based on what Martin had told me, I realized she was trying to blow me off. Worse than that, she was practicing selective prosecution, covering up clear crimes because the perpetrators were members in good standing of the Republican "home team." That's when I decided I had a story the public needed to know about. The question was: When to write about it?
* One of the goals for this blog has been to show that the wrongdoing I've experienced in Alabama state courts has connections to larger, national issues involving our U.S. Justice Department. So through fall 2007, Legal Schnauzer focused largely on honest-services mail fraud and how that issued weaved its way through three cases--the Don Siegelman prosecution in Alabama, the Paul Minor prosecution in Mississippi, and my own case in Alabama state courts. My research indicated that defendants in the Siegelman and Minor cases, all Democrats, were in federal prison for honest-services mail fraud that they did not commit. Meanwhile, judges and at least one attorney, all Republicans, clearly had committed honest-services mail fraud in my case. And they were not even being investigated.
* The failure of the Justice Department to investigate my case is a classic example of selective prosecution, the topic of an ongoing Congressional inquiry. And that is where Alice Martin enters the picture on our blog. It's also where my wife and I start receiving threats to unlawfully seize our property.
* Alice Martin was not the only character to enter the picture at about the time my wife and I started receiving threats regarding our property. The Paul Minor case in Mississippi also became a major topic on Legal Schnauzer. My first reference to the Minor case came on August 2, 2007, in a post titled "Another Republican Witch Hunt." You can read the post here, and to my knowledge, it is the first post on the Web about the Minor case and its connections to the Siegelman prosecution. The Minor case received national attention when Scott Horton, of Harper's, first wrote about it on Sept. 18, 2007, and I had a series of posts on Sept. 19, 2007. My posts on the Minor case from September 2007 can be read here.
* Why is September 2007 important? Follow on me on this timeline:
August 2, 2007--I first write about the Paul Minor case in Mississippi.
August 22, 2007--I first write about my e-mail exchange with Alice Martin.
September 18, 2007--Scott Horton, of Harper's, first writes about the Minor case.
September 19, 2007--I write a series of posts about the Minor case.
September 21, 2007--My wife and I receive a writ of execution, listing our house and two cars as property to be seized to satisfy a "judgment" against me in the amount of $1,525. The writ is not served as required by Alabama law.
November 12, 2007--I make a second, more detailed, reference to my e-mail exchange with Alice Martin.
November 20, 2007--I write the 25th installment in the "Mississippi Churning" series about the Minor case.
December 20, 2007--Shelby County deputy Bubba Caldwell (or Caldell, I'm not sure which) leaves a message on my wife's cell phone, saying that he is about to come and get one of our cars.
February 8, 2008--My wife and I receive a notice of levy, saying Shelby County Sheriff Chris Curry will sell our house to satisfy an alleged "judgment" of $1,525. Like the earlier writ of execution, the notice of levy is not served as required by Alabama law.
February 29, 2008--My wife and I receive notice from Shelby County Sheriff Chris Curry that our house will be auctioned off on the courthouse steps at noon on April 7, 2008. Like almost everything else we receive from county authorities, this is not done lawfully.
Do you see a pattern here? I sure do. Not long after I started writing about an e-mail exchange I had with Alice Martin, one that shows her pattern of selective prosecution, I started receiving threats about my property being seized. And those threats increase when I started writing in a detailed way about the Paul Minor case in Mississippi.
Any connections between Alice Martin, Mississippi, and my legal woes? We'll examine that question next.
The central Shelby County figures in my legal case are Pelham attorney William E. Swatek (who has an almost 30-year record of unethical activities in the legal profession) and corrupt circuit judges J. Michael Joiner and G. Dan Reeves.
Evidence, however, suggests that efforts by "jack booted thugs" to steal my house are being driven by figures beyond Shelby County. Evidence also suggests that this effort has nothing to do with a desire to take our house or our cars--or otherwise satisfy an alleged "judgment" in the amount of $1,525. This clearly is about the blog you are now reading.
Let's look at what the evidence tells us:
* I started this blog in June 2007, and my first reference, by name, to corrupt Republican judges in Shelby County came on July 9, 2007. You can read the post here. The posts makes references to several potentially sensitive topics among local GOPers--corrupt Pelham lawyer William E. Swatek and his ties to GOP judges; connections that Swatek and Joiner have to Briarwood Presbyterian Church and said church's curious connections to my legal case; and efforts from the outset by The Birmingham News to cover up the story, probably because Briarwood is the home church of longtime News publisher Victor Hanson II. It's quite clear that Joiner, Swatek, and the News have been aware of my blog for some time. But I'm not sure they even knew about it in summer 2007. Even if they did, I'm not sure it bothered them all that much. Joiner, for example, probably didn't like being called a criminal. But I've seen no evidence that he's all that upset about it. One, he knows he's a criminal, so I'm not breaking any news to him. And he knows the local legal and media establishment will protect him, so I'm not sure he, or Swatek, are terribly concerned about Legal Schnauzer.
* What about Alabama Governor Bob Riley? We've thrown daggers his way, almost from the outset of Legal Schnauzer. My first reference to Riley and his connections to my case--through his campaign manager Dax Swatek, who is William E. Swatek's son--came on June 12, 2007. You can read that post here. We've gone on to call Riley's ethics into question on numerous occasions, and we've noted that it appears Alabama's GOP-controlled state courts are protecting Bill Swatek because his son has worked for Riley. I have reason to believe that Riley and his inner circle are aware of Legal Schnauzer and probably are none too pleased with it. But are they behind threats to steal my house? The evidence suggests, to me, that they probably are not--or at least, I don't think they are the primary force.
So who is behind it? Let's follow the evidence trail a little further.
What if we follow the timeline between what was being written on this blog and when threats to seize my property began? Will that tell us who is behind the "jack booted thugs" who have been making our lives quite unpleasant?
I think it will:
* In late July of 2007, I had a most interesting e-mail exchange with Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama. This came after I had sent her two lengthy "snail-mail" letters outlining criminal wrongdoing I had witnessed by multiple judges and at least one attorney in her district. Martin did not respond to my second letter, so after several months of waiting, I took a wild stab at e-mailing her. I didn't know what her e-mail address was, and to my knowledge, it isn't published anywhere on the Web. But I apparently guessed right because she responded. I identified myself by name and made reference to my letters and asked for an update about actions that had been taken regarding the information I had sent. As you will see shortly, Martin was quite evasive in answering my questions, and she clearly was not pleased that I wasn't readily accepting her responses.
* You also will notice that I did not inform her that I had a blog about my legal experiences. At the time, I didn't think the fact that I wrote a blog was relevant; I simply wanted to see that something was going to be done about the crimes I had witnessed. When I conducted some research based on what Martin had told me, I realized she was trying to blow me off. Worse than that, she was practicing selective prosecution, covering up clear crimes because the perpetrators were members in good standing of the Republican "home team." That's when I decided I had a story the public needed to know about. The question was: When to write about it?
* One of the goals for this blog has been to show that the wrongdoing I've experienced in Alabama state courts has connections to larger, national issues involving our U.S. Justice Department. So through fall 2007, Legal Schnauzer focused largely on honest-services mail fraud and how that issued weaved its way through three cases--the Don Siegelman prosecution in Alabama, the Paul Minor prosecution in Mississippi, and my own case in Alabama state courts. My research indicated that defendants in the Siegelman and Minor cases, all Democrats, were in federal prison for honest-services mail fraud that they did not commit. Meanwhile, judges and at least one attorney, all Republicans, clearly had committed honest-services mail fraud in my case. And they were not even being investigated.
* The failure of the Justice Department to investigate my case is a classic example of selective prosecution, the topic of an ongoing Congressional inquiry. And that is where Alice Martin enters the picture on our blog. It's also where my wife and I start receiving threats to unlawfully seize our property.
* Alice Martin was not the only character to enter the picture at about the time my wife and I started receiving threats regarding our property. The Paul Minor case in Mississippi also became a major topic on Legal Schnauzer. My first reference to the Minor case came on August 2, 2007, in a post titled "Another Republican Witch Hunt." You can read the post here, and to my knowledge, it is the first post on the Web about the Minor case and its connections to the Siegelman prosecution. The Minor case received national attention when Scott Horton, of Harper's, first wrote about it on Sept. 18, 2007, and I had a series of posts on Sept. 19, 2007. My posts on the Minor case from September 2007 can be read here.
* Why is September 2007 important? Follow on me on this timeline:
August 2, 2007--I first write about the Paul Minor case in Mississippi.
August 22, 2007--I first write about my e-mail exchange with Alice Martin.
September 18, 2007--Scott Horton, of Harper's, first writes about the Minor case.
September 19, 2007--I write a series of posts about the Minor case.
September 21, 2007--My wife and I receive a writ of execution, listing our house and two cars as property to be seized to satisfy a "judgment" against me in the amount of $1,525. The writ is not served as required by Alabama law.
November 12, 2007--I make a second, more detailed, reference to my e-mail exchange with Alice Martin.
November 20, 2007--I write the 25th installment in the "Mississippi Churning" series about the Minor case.
December 20, 2007--Shelby County deputy Bubba Caldwell (or Caldell, I'm not sure which) leaves a message on my wife's cell phone, saying that he is about to come and get one of our cars.
February 8, 2008--My wife and I receive a notice of levy, saying Shelby County Sheriff Chris Curry will sell our house to satisfy an alleged "judgment" of $1,525. Like the earlier writ of execution, the notice of levy is not served as required by Alabama law.
February 29, 2008--My wife and I receive notice from Shelby County Sheriff Chris Curry that our house will be auctioned off on the courthouse steps at noon on April 7, 2008. Like almost everything else we receive from county authorities, this is not done lawfully.
Do you see a pattern here? I sure do. Not long after I started writing about an e-mail exchange I had with Alice Martin, one that shows her pattern of selective prosecution, I started receiving threats about my property being seized. And those threats increase when I started writing in a detailed way about the Paul Minor case in Mississippi.
Any connections between Alice Martin, Mississippi, and my legal woes? We'll examine that question next.
Grappling With the Right-Wing Attack Machine
Auburn University Professor James Gundlach is an old hand at fighting off the right-wing attack dogs. He's got the hate mail to prove it.
How did Gundlach draw the right wing's ire? He wrote an academic paper showing that the vote totals in Alabama's 2002 gubernatorial election almost certainly were electronically manipulated. That manipulation, of course, gave Republican Bob Riley a paper-thin, come-from-behind win over Democrat Don Siegelman.
We posted about Gundlach's paper here. Writing that post gave me a taste for the kind of venom the Auburn academic inspires from certain GOPers. As you can see, I had quite a back-and-forth with one commenter who raised numerous objections about Gundlach's work. When I pointed out that Gundlach's paper addressed each one of the reader's contentions, that didn't seem to compute. It finally became clear that this reader, and others, wanted to trash Gundlach, but they didn't actually want to read his paper, which is readily available on the Web.
The GOPers can get pretty creative when it comes to attacking Gundlach. The other day, a reader going by the name of "Plumb Bob" sent me a comment that did a pretty good job of making me think he really knew about computers and the issues raised in Gundlach's paper. The comment is the last one on the post at the link above, and here it is in its entirety:
I know this is way after the fact, but I don't need to read Prof. Gundlach's paper to know where he went wrong. It's this statement:
"Gundlach says computers can't have glitches without human intervention."
Gundlach is a complete idiot. I don't think I've ever heard anything sillier from a Professor.
The description of the creation of the summary sheet indicates a cartridge making some sort of electrical interface with some sort of readout equipment, probably an electronic interface with an LEDreadout. I can think of half a dozen places in a system like that that an error could occur, and I'm pretty sure we've all experienced them ourselves:
- There could be dirt in the contacts between the cartridge and reader, resulting in a false reading.
- There could be a fault in the LED, causing a false number or a scrambled number on the display.
- There could be bad lighting, with the result that the person reading the interface saw something wrong.
- There could be a dog-tired operator.
- There could be a weak electrical supply, resulting in a completely erroneous display.
That's just off the top of my head.
The just insanely silly statement, "computers can't have glitches without human intervention," is the dead giveaway that Prof. Gundlach engaged in a process that was going to find evidence of fraud whether it occurred or not. Such analyses should be avoided like the plague.
The anonymous commenters are correct: the reports from those who examined the actual process are more to be trusted than the statistical analysis of a clearly biased interpreter.
I asked Prof. Gundlach if he would like to respond to "Plumb Bob," and he said yes. Here is his reply:
The commenter is misquoting me. I said computers don't produce different results without human intervention. When you get the kind of glitch the poster is describing, the programs fail; (they do) not create new numbers. And, in the Baldwin County case, three different results were produced. . . . For what it is worth, (my study) has been gone over by a team of statisticians from MIT, and they thought it was the strongest evidence of an electronically stolen election they had seen.
How did Gundlach draw the right wing's ire? He wrote an academic paper showing that the vote totals in Alabama's 2002 gubernatorial election almost certainly were electronically manipulated. That manipulation, of course, gave Republican Bob Riley a paper-thin, come-from-behind win over Democrat Don Siegelman.
We posted about Gundlach's paper here. Writing that post gave me a taste for the kind of venom the Auburn academic inspires from certain GOPers. As you can see, I had quite a back-and-forth with one commenter who raised numerous objections about Gundlach's work. When I pointed out that Gundlach's paper addressed each one of the reader's contentions, that didn't seem to compute. It finally became clear that this reader, and others, wanted to trash Gundlach, but they didn't actually want to read his paper, which is readily available on the Web.
The GOPers can get pretty creative when it comes to attacking Gundlach. The other day, a reader going by the name of "Plumb Bob" sent me a comment that did a pretty good job of making me think he really knew about computers and the issues raised in Gundlach's paper. The comment is the last one on the post at the link above, and here it is in its entirety:
I know this is way after the fact, but I don't need to read Prof. Gundlach's paper to know where he went wrong. It's this statement:
"Gundlach says computers can't have glitches without human intervention."
Gundlach is a complete idiot. I don't think I've ever heard anything sillier from a Professor.
The description of the creation of the summary sheet indicates a cartridge making some sort of electrical interface with some sort of readout equipment, probably an electronic interface with an LEDreadout. I can think of half a dozen places in a system like that that an error could occur, and I'm pretty sure we've all experienced them ourselves:
- There could be dirt in the contacts between the cartridge and reader, resulting in a false reading.
- There could be a fault in the LED, causing a false number or a scrambled number on the display.
- There could be bad lighting, with the result that the person reading the interface saw something wrong.
- There could be a dog-tired operator.
- There could be a weak electrical supply, resulting in a completely erroneous display.
That's just off the top of my head.
The just insanely silly statement, "computers can't have glitches without human intervention," is the dead giveaway that Prof. Gundlach engaged in a process that was going to find evidence of fraud whether it occurred or not. Such analyses should be avoided like the plague.
The anonymous commenters are correct: the reports from those who examined the actual process are more to be trusted than the statistical analysis of a clearly biased interpreter.
I asked Prof. Gundlach if he would like to respond to "Plumb Bob," and he said yes. Here is his reply:
The commenter is misquoting me. I said computers don't produce different results without human intervention. When you get the kind of glitch the poster is describing, the programs fail; (they do) not create new numbers. And, in the Baldwin County case, three different results were produced. . . . For what it is worth, (my study) has been gone over by a team of statisticians from MIT, and they thought it was the strongest evidence of an electronically stolen election they had seen.
Don't Discount GOP Dirty Deeds
In the wake of Barack Obama's stirring speech on America's racial divide, it might be tempting for Democrats to think they've got the 2008 presidential election sewn up.
But there are several things wrong with that line of thinking. For one, Hillary Clinton supporters are saying, "Hey, Obama doesn't even have the Democratic nomination wrapped up yet." And they have a point.
But an even more important point comes from Mark Crispin Miller at News From Underground: Never underestimate Republicans' ability to steal an election.
Miller issued his warning after noting that even sharp commentators such as Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow seemed to think that Republicans were giving Obama's speech a sincere "two thumbs up." But Dems had best be wary:
The Bush regime has taken many steps already to prevent Obama (or Clinton) from prevailing, and they're taking more such steps right now. In fact, it's been their main concern, throughout this decade, to subvert the democratic system, in order to prolong their power (and save themselves from prosecution) until Kingdom Come. All they need is for the race to end up seeming sort of close, and some convincing-sounding rationales to help "explain" their "victory." As we've seen before, it's not so hard to do; and they will try to do it again (once again), regardless of Obama's merits or national support.
But there are several things wrong with that line of thinking. For one, Hillary Clinton supporters are saying, "Hey, Obama doesn't even have the Democratic nomination wrapped up yet." And they have a point.
But an even more important point comes from Mark Crispin Miller at News From Underground: Never underestimate Republicans' ability to steal an election.
Miller issued his warning after noting that even sharp commentators such as Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow seemed to think that Republicans were giving Obama's speech a sincere "two thumbs up." But Dems had best be wary:
The Bush regime has taken many steps already to prevent Obama (or Clinton) from prevailing, and they're taking more such steps right now. In fact, it's been their main concern, throughout this decade, to subvert the democratic system, in order to prolong their power (and save themselves from prosecution) until Kingdom Come. All they need is for the race to end up seeming sort of close, and some convincing-sounding rationales to help "explain" their "victory." As we've seen before, it's not so hard to do; and they will try to do it again (once again), regardless of Obama's merits or national support.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Jack-Booted Thugs and Legal Consequences
One of the recurring themes of this blog is that a significant number of people in the legal profession have a shocking lack of regard for the law.
Whether it involves lawyers, judges, law-enforcement personnel, court clerks, you name it, I've repeatedly seen the law treated as if it were yesterday's garbage.
So perhaps I should not be surprised that people in positions of authority evidently have no qualms about making unlawful threats to seize my home--all for the apparent purpose of shutting down this blog.
I'm not a lawyer, and Lord knows I'm not a prosecutor. But I've spent way more time than the average layperson trying to educate myself about the law. And I think I can make some educated guesses about possible legal ramifications certain folks could face for making unlawful threats to seize my home--or anyone's home, for that matter.
Here are a few civil and criminal wrongs that seem to be in play here:
* Civil rights violations, part I--The writ of execution I received was not served according to Alabama law. Shelby County Clerk Mary Harris and Sheriff Chris Curry should know that a writ of execution and a notice of levy must be served with a notice of rights to claim exemptions. This was not done, and it almost certainly was not done intentionally. That is a violation of procedural due process guaranteed under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
* Civil rights violations, part II--It is pretty much impossible to sue a judge, no matter how corrupt he is, as long as he acts within his judicial capacity. But when a judge acts beyond his capacity as a judge, he is fair game. For example, a judge certainly can be sued for employment discrimination or sexual harassment against members of his staff. Are Shelby County Circuit Judges J. Michael Joiner and G. Dan Reeves involved in these unlawful threats to seize my house? It's hard for me to believe that it could take place without their knowledge. And if they are involved, my research indicates that a judge acts beyond his judicial capacity if he is involved in the collection of a judgment. If I'm correct about that, Joiner and Reeves could face liability for civil rights violations.
* Abuse of process--Abuse of process is a relatively broad tort, similar to malicious prosecution. One of the main differences between the two is that abuse of process can be filed as a counterclaim. Malicious prosecution requires that a previous proceeding end favorably for the plaintiff, so it cannot be filed as a counterclaim. Anything involving garnishment, attachment, execution, levy, etc. is a classic use of legal "process." And the threats to seize my property are a classic abuse of such process. Any number of folks could be liable for this--starting with Attorney Bill Swatek, who I assume applied for the writ of execution, and County Clerk Mary Harris, who unlawfully issued it, and Sheriff Chris Curry who is unlawfully following through with it.
* Honest-services wire fraud--Shelby County deputies have made more than a dozen phone calls to my wife's cell phone about the unlawful writ of execution that we received. This represents use of U.S. wires in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme, designed to wrongfully deprive me of property. I'm not sure that the deputies who made the calls could be held accountable because they might believe the writ is lawful. But whoever put them up to making his repeated phone calls should be at risk for a federal wire-fraud charge. Of course, nothing is going to happen to these folks as long as Alice Martin is U.S. Attorney here. But God willing, we'll have a Democrat in the White House come January 2009. If a we wind up with a real U.S. attorney in the Northern District of Alabama, a number of folks in this case might want to get legal representation.
* Criminal and Civil Trespass--On at least three occasions, Shelby County deputies have come on our property to leave unlawful documents for us. Law-enforcement personnel normally have a license to enter property when they are acting in their professional capacity. But these were not lawful documents that should have been part of the deputies official business. Again, I don't know that the deputies themselves could be held accountable for this. But I believe whoever instructed them to repeatedly enter or property for no official reason should be at risk of both criminal and civil trespassing charges.
* Defamation--State law requires that a sheriff's sale of real property be advertised for three consecutive weeks prior to the sale. I've seen no indication that such a notice has been advertised yet. But if it is, anyone who caused the advertisement to be placed, should face liability for defamation. The notice would indicate that I owe a judgment that I have refused to pay, causing my home to be put up for auction. This is not true. This also would indicate that I have failed to show that my home is exempt from levy. Again, this is not true because I have been given no notice of right to exemption, as required by law. So far, the notice of sale has been "published" only to me and my wife, and that does not constitute publication required by defamation law. But if the notice is posted or advertised where any third party can read it, those responsible for such posting should be liable for defamation.
* Conspiracy--If two or more parties worked together to carry out any of the criminal acts noted above, that should lead to a conspiracy charge.
* First Amendment--If it can be shown that the threats to seize property were designed to scare me into shutting down this blog, that would raise constitutional issues regarding my right to free speech.
Whether it involves lawyers, judges, law-enforcement personnel, court clerks, you name it, I've repeatedly seen the law treated as if it were yesterday's garbage.
So perhaps I should not be surprised that people in positions of authority evidently have no qualms about making unlawful threats to seize my home--all for the apparent purpose of shutting down this blog.
I'm not a lawyer, and Lord knows I'm not a prosecutor. But I've spent way more time than the average layperson trying to educate myself about the law. And I think I can make some educated guesses about possible legal ramifications certain folks could face for making unlawful threats to seize my home--or anyone's home, for that matter.
Here are a few civil and criminal wrongs that seem to be in play here:
* Civil rights violations, part I--The writ of execution I received was not served according to Alabama law. Shelby County Clerk Mary Harris and Sheriff Chris Curry should know that a writ of execution and a notice of levy must be served with a notice of rights to claim exemptions. This was not done, and it almost certainly was not done intentionally. That is a violation of procedural due process guaranteed under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
* Civil rights violations, part II--It is pretty much impossible to sue a judge, no matter how corrupt he is, as long as he acts within his judicial capacity. But when a judge acts beyond his capacity as a judge, he is fair game. For example, a judge certainly can be sued for employment discrimination or sexual harassment against members of his staff. Are Shelby County Circuit Judges J. Michael Joiner and G. Dan Reeves involved in these unlawful threats to seize my house? It's hard for me to believe that it could take place without their knowledge. And if they are involved, my research indicates that a judge acts beyond his judicial capacity if he is involved in the collection of a judgment. If I'm correct about that, Joiner and Reeves could face liability for civil rights violations.
* Abuse of process--Abuse of process is a relatively broad tort, similar to malicious prosecution. One of the main differences between the two is that abuse of process can be filed as a counterclaim. Malicious prosecution requires that a previous proceeding end favorably for the plaintiff, so it cannot be filed as a counterclaim. Anything involving garnishment, attachment, execution, levy, etc. is a classic use of legal "process." And the threats to seize my property are a classic abuse of such process. Any number of folks could be liable for this--starting with Attorney Bill Swatek, who I assume applied for the writ of execution, and County Clerk Mary Harris, who unlawfully issued it, and Sheriff Chris Curry who is unlawfully following through with it.
* Honest-services wire fraud--Shelby County deputies have made more than a dozen phone calls to my wife's cell phone about the unlawful writ of execution that we received. This represents use of U.S. wires in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme, designed to wrongfully deprive me of property. I'm not sure that the deputies who made the calls could be held accountable because they might believe the writ is lawful. But whoever put them up to making his repeated phone calls should be at risk for a federal wire-fraud charge. Of course, nothing is going to happen to these folks as long as Alice Martin is U.S. Attorney here. But God willing, we'll have a Democrat in the White House come January 2009. If a we wind up with a real U.S. attorney in the Northern District of Alabama, a number of folks in this case might want to get legal representation.
* Criminal and Civil Trespass--On at least three occasions, Shelby County deputies have come on our property to leave unlawful documents for us. Law-enforcement personnel normally have a license to enter property when they are acting in their professional capacity. But these were not lawful documents that should have been part of the deputies official business. Again, I don't know that the deputies themselves could be held accountable for this. But I believe whoever instructed them to repeatedly enter or property for no official reason should be at risk of both criminal and civil trespassing charges.
* Defamation--State law requires that a sheriff's sale of real property be advertised for three consecutive weeks prior to the sale. I've seen no indication that such a notice has been advertised yet. But if it is, anyone who caused the advertisement to be placed, should face liability for defamation. The notice would indicate that I owe a judgment that I have refused to pay, causing my home to be put up for auction. This is not true. This also would indicate that I have failed to show that my home is exempt from levy. Again, this is not true because I have been given no notice of right to exemption, as required by law. So far, the notice of sale has been "published" only to me and my wife, and that does not constitute publication required by defamation law. But if the notice is posted or advertised where any third party can read it, those responsible for such posting should be liable for defamation.
* Conspiracy--If two or more parties worked together to carry out any of the criminal acts noted above, that should lead to a conspiracy charge.
* First Amendment--If it can be shown that the threats to seize property were designed to scare me into shutting down this blog, that would raise constitutional issues regarding my right to free speech.
The Audacity of a Dope
Alabama Governor Bob Riley evidently fancies himself as the David Copperfield of politics--a master of deception, if you will.
But Riley's sleight of hand is easy to spot for those who are paying attention. And it leaves us with this question: Just how dumb does the governor think we Alabama citizens are?
Pretty dumb, apparently. But I would say Riley himself is the real dope.
We learned this week that Riley has the audacity to pretend that he is concerned about Alabama's system of taxing natural gas that is pumped offshore by ExxonMobil and other corporate titans. In fact, Riley has proposed a plan that would overhaul the state's severance tax and impose a tax rate on the amount of gas produced. Riley said a volume tax would be easier to compute and administer than the value tax that is currently used.
What is so audacious about this?
* Alabama Lt. Governor Jim Folsom Jr. already has proposed a rewrite of Alabama's tax on oil and natural-gas production--and he did it more than two months ago. Folsom noted that Alabama's current tax is a percentage of the value of the gas after it has been processed, and he proposed a volume-based tax levied when the natural gas comes out of the ground. It's possible there are some differences between Folsom's plan and Riley's plan. But they sound pretty much identical from here, and it appears Riley flat out stole Folsom's idea.
* In announcing his plan, Folsom noted the devastating impact of the decision last year by the Alabama Supreme Court to overturn almost all of a $3.6 billion jury award against ExxonMobil and for the State of Alabama. Riley makes no mention of the ExxonMobil case. Perhaps that's because Riley is bought and paid for by the same corporate types who have bought and paid for the Republicans on the Alabama Supreme Court, the ones who cheated the state out of billions of badly needed dollars.
* Shortly after the ExxonMobil ruling, Riley announced that the state would not even try to have the case reheard. I'm not an expert on appellate law, but I have a feeling the case could have been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But we have no word from the Riley camp that they intend to seek such review. And it's too late to do that anyway. The Alabama Supreme Court ruling was issued in late October, so the 90-day window for seeking certiorari review from the U.S. Supreme Court has passed. Oh well, it was only $3.6 billion.
* Again, I'm not an expert on appellate law. I do know that the U.S. Supreme Court rarely reviews cases just because a state's high court has screwed it up. (That's why our elections for those state high-court races are so important, folks.) A case usually has to involve bigger issues than that to draw the attention of the U.S. Supremes. But the amount of money involved, the international scope of ExxonMobil, the national importance of natural-gas exploration, issues raised over interpretation of a contract with a multinational corporation . . . all of that might make the case of interest to the U.S. Supremes. But the Riley camp didn't even try. Now they will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court about Riley's right to fill vacant county commission seats. But fighting for $3.6 billion for the citizens of Alabama? Nah.
* What is Riley really up to with his plan on natural-gas taxes? He's trying to provide cover for the Republicans on the Alabama Supreme Court who authored the ExxonMobil screw job. Unlike Folsom, who essentially says contracts need to be revised because the state high court won't protect citizens from corporate fraud, Riley says the contracts themselves were at fault. If you study the ExxonMobil case, you find that Alabama's contracts already had been strengthened to put the state in a better position than it was previously. That's why ExxonMobil didn't like them and decided to get around them by committing fraud. The current contracts appear to have been written with the idea that ExxonMobil was somewhat honorable and would not try to get around the contracts by committing fraud. The oil giant has proven that it is not at all honorable and will indeed commit fraud, so Folsom says even the hint of a loophole must be closed. Riley, on the other hand, points a finger only at the contracts, never raising the issue of fraud.
It's amusing to hear Riley harrumph about contracts that he says allow ExxonMobil and other companies to use Alabama's natural resources without paying a fair price. But the contracts don't allow that unless the company is trying to commit fraud, which the Alabama Supreme Court lets them get away with it.
Get a load of Riley's quotes:
"It's unconscionable. It is something that absolutely ends up fleecing the people of Alabama." (No, Bob, the Alabama Supreme Court is the one who allowed ExxonMobil to fleece the people of Alabama.)
"As long as I'm governor, we will not allow any company, Exxon or any other international company, to come into this state and take our natural resources free of charge." (You've already seen Exxon get away with fraud, and you chose to do nothing about it.)
"This is one of the most egregious acts that I've seen since I've been governor." (Oh, really? Where were you when the $3.6 billion screw job was going down?)
Here's a question: How many Alabamians will buy Riley's act of deception without batting an eye?
But Riley's sleight of hand is easy to spot for those who are paying attention. And it leaves us with this question: Just how dumb does the governor think we Alabama citizens are?
Pretty dumb, apparently. But I would say Riley himself is the real dope.
We learned this week that Riley has the audacity to pretend that he is concerned about Alabama's system of taxing natural gas that is pumped offshore by ExxonMobil and other corporate titans. In fact, Riley has proposed a plan that would overhaul the state's severance tax and impose a tax rate on the amount of gas produced. Riley said a volume tax would be easier to compute and administer than the value tax that is currently used.
What is so audacious about this?
* Alabama Lt. Governor Jim Folsom Jr. already has proposed a rewrite of Alabama's tax on oil and natural-gas production--and he did it more than two months ago. Folsom noted that Alabama's current tax is a percentage of the value of the gas after it has been processed, and he proposed a volume-based tax levied when the natural gas comes out of the ground. It's possible there are some differences between Folsom's plan and Riley's plan. But they sound pretty much identical from here, and it appears Riley flat out stole Folsom's idea.
* In announcing his plan, Folsom noted the devastating impact of the decision last year by the Alabama Supreme Court to overturn almost all of a $3.6 billion jury award against ExxonMobil and for the State of Alabama. Riley makes no mention of the ExxonMobil case. Perhaps that's because Riley is bought and paid for by the same corporate types who have bought and paid for the Republicans on the Alabama Supreme Court, the ones who cheated the state out of billions of badly needed dollars.
* Shortly after the ExxonMobil ruling, Riley announced that the state would not even try to have the case reheard. I'm not an expert on appellate law, but I have a feeling the case could have been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But we have no word from the Riley camp that they intend to seek such review. And it's too late to do that anyway. The Alabama Supreme Court ruling was issued in late October, so the 90-day window for seeking certiorari review from the U.S. Supreme Court has passed. Oh well, it was only $3.6 billion.
* Again, I'm not an expert on appellate law. I do know that the U.S. Supreme Court rarely reviews cases just because a state's high court has screwed it up. (That's why our elections for those state high-court races are so important, folks.) A case usually has to involve bigger issues than that to draw the attention of the U.S. Supremes. But the amount of money involved, the international scope of ExxonMobil, the national importance of natural-gas exploration, issues raised over interpretation of a contract with a multinational corporation . . . all of that might make the case of interest to the U.S. Supremes. But the Riley camp didn't even try. Now they will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court about Riley's right to fill vacant county commission seats. But fighting for $3.6 billion for the citizens of Alabama? Nah.
* What is Riley really up to with his plan on natural-gas taxes? He's trying to provide cover for the Republicans on the Alabama Supreme Court who authored the ExxonMobil screw job. Unlike Folsom, who essentially says contracts need to be revised because the state high court won't protect citizens from corporate fraud, Riley says the contracts themselves were at fault. If you study the ExxonMobil case, you find that Alabama's contracts already had been strengthened to put the state in a better position than it was previously. That's why ExxonMobil didn't like them and decided to get around them by committing fraud. The current contracts appear to have been written with the idea that ExxonMobil was somewhat honorable and would not try to get around the contracts by committing fraud. The oil giant has proven that it is not at all honorable and will indeed commit fraud, so Folsom says even the hint of a loophole must be closed. Riley, on the other hand, points a finger only at the contracts, never raising the issue of fraud.
It's amusing to hear Riley harrumph about contracts that he says allow ExxonMobil and other companies to use Alabama's natural resources without paying a fair price. But the contracts don't allow that unless the company is trying to commit fraud, which the Alabama Supreme Court lets them get away with it.
Get a load of Riley's quotes:
"It's unconscionable. It is something that absolutely ends up fleecing the people of Alabama." (No, Bob, the Alabama Supreme Court is the one who allowed ExxonMobil to fleece the people of Alabama.)
"As long as I'm governor, we will not allow any company, Exxon or any other international company, to come into this state and take our natural resources free of charge." (You've already seen Exxon get away with fraud, and you chose to do nothing about it.)
"This is one of the most egregious acts that I've seen since I've been governor." (Oh, really? Where were you when the $3.6 billion screw job was going down?)
Here's a question: How many Alabamians will buy Riley's act of deception without batting an eye?
Thursday, March 20, 2008
The Jack-Booted Thugs are Back!
My wife and I returned home the other night to find we'd had another visit from the fine folks at the Shelby County Sheriff's Department.
I recounted in a recent post the efforts by local authorities to unlawfully seize our house. I noted in another recent post why these efforts are unlawful. But none of that has stopped the state-sponsored terrorism campaign being carried out--at least on the front end--by Chris Curry, sheriff of Shelby County, Alabama, and Mary Harris, the circuit clerk.
By virtue of a Writ of Execution issued out of District Court of Shelby County, Alabama, and to me directed whereby I am commanded to make the amount of a certain judgment recently obtained against Roger Shuler in favor of Mike McGarity out of the goods, chattels, lands and tenements of the said Roger Shuler, I have levied on the following property, to wit:
(A description of the lot, block, book, and page number of our house)
Therefore, according to said command, I shall expose for sale at public auction, all the right, title and interest of the above named Roger Shuler to the above described property on the 7th day of April, 2008 at 12:00 noon, on the front steps of the Shelby County Courthouse in Columbiana, Alabama.
Dated at Columbiana this 29th day of February, 2008.
Chris Curry
Sheriff of Shelby County, Alabama
This all started with a writ of execution issued by Circuit Clerk Mary Harris, and I wrote here about threats to seize our cars. That didn't work, so the next move was to seize our house. Keep in mind, this is for an alleged debt in the grand total of $1,525.
(You might also recall that this whole problem with our neighbor started because my wife and I were victims of a crime--repeated criminal trespassing (a violation, not even a misdemeanor). When the guy continued to trespass after multiple verbal warnings and even a letter from a lawyer, we finally sought to have the crime prosecuted. Ron Jackson, a Republican district judge, found the neighbor not guilty even though a court transcript shows the guy confessed to the crime. Because the neighbor was found not guilty, he was able to sue me for a "disfavored" tort called malicious prosecution. That led to multiple unlawful rulings by Republican judges in Alabama, and ultimately, to the blog you are now reading. Turns out the neighbor has at least eight criminal convictions in his background. The lawyer who filed the lawsuit on his behalf has a 30-year record of unethical activity in the legal profession; he's had his license suspended and was tried for perjury in criminal court. A key lesson I hope readers will take from my experience: A victim who lives through any crime--assault, theft, rape, you name it--can be sued for malicious prosecution (and a similar tort called false imprisonment) if the defendant is found not guilty. These are considered "disfavored torts," and it's unlikely that a reputable lawyer would file such a case. And any reputable judge almost certainly would kick such a case. But I know from experience that the world is filled with disreputable lawyers and judges. And fighting such a bogus case can easily cost $10,000 to $20,000--or more.)
Why would authorities try to seize a house to satisfy a debt of $1,525? Can we say, "ulterior motive?"
Here is something interesting about this recent missive from Sheriff Curry: I noted in a previous post, that we already have received a "notice of levy," notifying us that our house was going to be sold to satisfy this alleged judgment. A notice of levy and writ of execution are governed by Rule 69 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure (ARCP).
But Rule 69 says nothing about taping a notice of the sheriff's sale to the garage door of the property owner. In fact, it says nothing about notifying the property owner, yours truly, of the sheriff's sale.
So why would they do it? The notice of levy already has told me that they are going to auction off my house. (Actually, it's our house, co-owned by my wife, who was not a party to the lawsuit in question.) So why did they notify me of the sheriff's sale? Do they think I'm going to show up and try to buy my own house?
Gee, can't imagine why I would suspect that ulterior motives are at work here.
But I do know this: There are significant legal ramifications to what Sheriff Curry and Clerk Harris are doing--assuming, that is, that the law applies anywhere in Alabama?
We will address those legal ramifications soon.
By the way, you can write to County Clerk Mary Harris and Sheriff Chris Curry and ask them why they are issuing invalid writs of executions on unconstitutional judgments--essentially conducting an unlawful terror campaign on one of their citizens. You might want to ask them: Hey, whose bucket of water are you carrying?
You can write them at:
Chris Curry:
ccurry@shelbycountyalabama.net
Mary Harris:
mary.harris@alacourt.gov
Tell them Legal Schnauzer sent you.
I recounted in a recent post the efforts by local authorities to unlawfully seize our house. I noted in another recent post why these efforts are unlawful. But none of that has stopped the state-sponsored terrorism campaign being carried out--at least on the front end--by Chris Curry, sheriff of Shelby County, Alabama, and Mary Harris, the circuit clerk.
I suspect far bigger GOP fish than Curry and Harris are actually behind this.
What was the thugs' latest tactic? We returned home to find a notice taped to our garage door. It read:
Sheriff's SaleBy virtue of a Writ of Execution issued out of District Court of Shelby County, Alabama, and to me directed whereby I am commanded to make the amount of a certain judgment recently obtained against Roger Shuler in favor of Mike McGarity out of the goods, chattels, lands and tenements of the said Roger Shuler, I have levied on the following property, to wit:
(A description of the lot, block, book, and page number of our house)
Therefore, according to said command, I shall expose for sale at public auction, all the right, title and interest of the above named Roger Shuler to the above described property on the 7th day of April, 2008 at 12:00 noon, on the front steps of the Shelby County Courthouse in Columbiana, Alabama.
Dated at Columbiana this 29th day of February, 2008.
Chris Curry
Sheriff of Shelby County, Alabama
This all started with a writ of execution issued by Circuit Clerk Mary Harris, and I wrote here about threats to seize our cars. That didn't work, so the next move was to seize our house. Keep in mind, this is for an alleged debt in the grand total of $1,525.
(You might also recall that this whole problem with our neighbor started because my wife and I were victims of a crime--repeated criminal trespassing (a violation, not even a misdemeanor). When the guy continued to trespass after multiple verbal warnings and even a letter from a lawyer, we finally sought to have the crime prosecuted. Ron Jackson, a Republican district judge, found the neighbor not guilty even though a court transcript shows the guy confessed to the crime. Because the neighbor was found not guilty, he was able to sue me for a "disfavored" tort called malicious prosecution. That led to multiple unlawful rulings by Republican judges in Alabama, and ultimately, to the blog you are now reading. Turns out the neighbor has at least eight criminal convictions in his background. The lawyer who filed the lawsuit on his behalf has a 30-year record of unethical activity in the legal profession; he's had his license suspended and was tried for perjury in criminal court. A key lesson I hope readers will take from my experience: A victim who lives through any crime--assault, theft, rape, you name it--can be sued for malicious prosecution (and a similar tort called false imprisonment) if the defendant is found not guilty. These are considered "disfavored torts," and it's unlikely that a reputable lawyer would file such a case. And any reputable judge almost certainly would kick such a case. But I know from experience that the world is filled with disreputable lawyers and judges. And fighting such a bogus case can easily cost $10,000 to $20,000--or more.)
Why would authorities try to seize a house to satisfy a debt of $1,525? Can we say, "ulterior motive?"
Here is something interesting about this recent missive from Sheriff Curry: I noted in a previous post, that we already have received a "notice of levy," notifying us that our house was going to be sold to satisfy this alleged judgment. A notice of levy and writ of execution are governed by Rule 69 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure (ARCP).
But Rule 69 says nothing about taping a notice of the sheriff's sale to the garage door of the property owner. In fact, it says nothing about notifying the property owner, yours truly, of the sheriff's sale.
So why would they do it? The notice of levy already has told me that they are going to auction off my house. (Actually, it's our house, co-owned by my wife, who was not a party to the lawsuit in question.) So why did they notify me of the sheriff's sale? Do they think I'm going to show up and try to buy my own house?
Gee, can't imagine why I would suspect that ulterior motives are at work here.
But I do know this: There are significant legal ramifications to what Sheriff Curry and Clerk Harris are doing--assuming, that is, that the law applies anywhere in Alabama?
We will address those legal ramifications soon.
By the way, you can write to County Clerk Mary Harris and Sheriff Chris Curry and ask them why they are issuing invalid writs of executions on unconstitutional judgments--essentially conducting an unlawful terror campaign on one of their citizens. You might want to ask them: Hey, whose bucket of water are you carrying?
You can write them at:
Chris Curry:
ccurry@shelbycountyalabama.net
Mary Harris:
mary.harris@alacourt.gov
Tell them Legal Schnauzer sent you.
The Go-To Guy on Our Crumbling Economy
Want to know what's behind all the wretched economic news we're seeing lately? Well, be sure to visit your local bookstore on April 15.
That's when Kevin Phillips' latest book--Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism--will be released.
Actually, you don't need to wait for Bad Money to come out. You can go to your library and check out Phillips' 1990 classic The Politics of Rich and Poor. I read Rich and Poor in 1991, and it turned me into a Bill Clinton voter and an anti-Republican for the rest of my life.
Once you read Rich and Poor, you won't be surprised by what is happening now. In fact, it was to be expected.
Phillips' work is so powerful because (a) He's a world-class economic historian; (b) He's a gem-dandy writer; and (c) He's a former Nixon Republican, who is repulsed by the Reagan brand of modern conservatism.
Rich and Poor takes us back to the 1800s and the Gilded Age, showing us the stark downside to conservative economics. Two themes play out over and over in Phillips' narrative that covers 100-plus years:
* Conservative economic policies inevitably lead to a growing income gap, with a shrinking slice of the economic pie for the middle class. After the usual boomlet that comes with tax cuts for the wealthy, the economy always falters when the middle class no longer has the discretionary income to buy things. It happened multiple times in the late 1800s, again in the 1920s, again in the late 1980s, and again right now. These all came after periods of conservative control of both the executive and legislative branches.
* Conservative economic policies inevitably lead to hyper-speculation, scandal, and financial hardship. Again, this has happened in the eras noted above, and it is happening again. We had the Great Depression in the 1920s, the savings-and-loan scandals of the 1980s, the subprime mortgage mess of today.
Just how bad is the current economic picture? Scott Horton, of Harper's, presents an excellent roundup, under the headline, "And Now for the Really Bad News . . . "
That's when Kevin Phillips' latest book--Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism--will be released.
Actually, you don't need to wait for Bad Money to come out. You can go to your library and check out Phillips' 1990 classic The Politics of Rich and Poor. I read Rich and Poor in 1991, and it turned me into a Bill Clinton voter and an anti-Republican for the rest of my life.
Once you read Rich and Poor, you won't be surprised by what is happening now. In fact, it was to be expected.
Phillips' work is so powerful because (a) He's a world-class economic historian; (b) He's a gem-dandy writer; and (c) He's a former Nixon Republican, who is repulsed by the Reagan brand of modern conservatism.
Rich and Poor takes us back to the 1800s and the Gilded Age, showing us the stark downside to conservative economics. Two themes play out over and over in Phillips' narrative that covers 100-plus years:
* Conservative economic policies inevitably lead to a growing income gap, with a shrinking slice of the economic pie for the middle class. After the usual boomlet that comes with tax cuts for the wealthy, the economy always falters when the middle class no longer has the discretionary income to buy things. It happened multiple times in the late 1800s, again in the 1920s, again in the late 1980s, and again right now. These all came after periods of conservative control of both the executive and legislative branches.
* Conservative economic policies inevitably lead to hyper-speculation, scandal, and financial hardship. Again, this has happened in the eras noted above, and it is happening again. We had the Great Depression in the 1920s, the savings-and-loan scandals of the 1980s, the subprime mortgage mess of today.
Just how bad is the current economic picture? Scott Horton, of Harper's, presents an excellent roundup, under the headline, "And Now for the Really Bad News . . . "
The lowlights include a subprime mortgage mess, a shaky housing market, the Bear Stearns Buy-Out, the collapsing dollar, teetering global markets . . . you get the idea.
Bush supporters would have you believe this is just a normal downturn in the economic cycle. But Kevin Phillips readers know better.
If you want to get the lowdown on Phillips, an excellent place to turn is a New Republic article by John Judis. Phillips is a master at taking the foibles of modern conservatism and laying them bare for all to see. This is at the heart of his most recent book, 2006's American Theocracy. The followup will be the upcoming Bad Money.
The Republican Party, Phillips says, has slowly become the vehicle of "a fusion of petroleum-defined national security; a crusading, simplistic Christianity; and a reckless credit-feeding financial complex." Under the Bushes, we have embraced "high-powered automobiles, air strikes, and invasions," become "the world's leading Bible reading crusader state," and suffered from "burgeoning debt levels" and the "implosion of American manufacturing."
That's pretty strong stuff. But Phillips was only getting warmed up in the Judis article. Does Phillips have problems with the Bushes? You make the call:
Phillips portrays W.'s election as a "dynastic succession" made possible by crony capitalism, campaign chicanery in Florida, and populist manipulation. The father's "political Achilles heel" was his "cultural schizophrenia ... an unstable mix of genteel northern moderate conservatism and the two-gunned Texas brand." The son, with "the cow country accent, the rumpled clothing, the chewing tobacco, the style of religiosity, the moral fundamentalism, the outsider language, the disdain for the Harvards and Yales, the six-gun geopolitics, and not least the garb of a sinner rescued from drink and brought to God by none other than evangelist Billy Graham," was "almost a caricature overcorrection of several of his father's greatest political weaknesses."
And how about this on the Bushes:
In American Theocracy, Phillips charges George W. Bush and his father with promoting "a reckless dependency on shrinking oil supplies, a milieu of radicalized (and much too influential) religion, and a reliance on borrowed money." The invasion of Iraq, Phillips argues, was intended in part to "rebuild Anglo-American oil company reserves, transform Iraq into an oil protectorate-cum-military base, and reinforce the global hegemony of the U.S. dollar." But religion also played a role. "There is something about Iraq--most cynics would nominate oil, but the influence of the Bible is also relevant--that clouds the competence of Anglo-American invaders and occupiers," Phillips writes.
Phillips goes on to take some whacks at Republican voters:
He condemns "the increasingly narrow, even theocratic, sentiment among Republican voters" as a threat to American science and democracy. Phillips writes, "No leading world power in modern memory has become a captive, even a partial captive, of the sort of biblical inerrancy ... that dismisses modern knowledge and science." Phillips simply has no patience with this large part of the Republican middle-class base. It "favors military intervention in the Middle East to promote the fulfillment of end-times prophecy and the second coming of Christ," rejects the climate-change treaty because it is "incompatible with the Book of Genesis," and believes in "the rights of embryos" and "the prerogative of the sperm and egg to join" over "the arguable rights of women."
Phillips is deeply troubled by the Religious Rights influence on the Republican Party:
"Some 30 to 40 percent of the Bush electorate, many of whom might otherwise resent their employment conditions, credit-card debt, heating bills or escalating cost for automobile upkeep (from insurance to gas prices), often subordinate these economic concerns to a broader religious preoccupation with biblical prophecy and the second coming of Jesus Christ."
Finally, Phillips takes on the "car culture" of the Southern states, including Alabama:
Phillips notes that the top four states where Bush has done better than Ronald Reagan--Alabama, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee--are "fundamentalist and evangelical strongholds notable for their unimpressive rankings in education, mental health, child poverty and homicide rate." He even rejects the "car culture" and "hydrocarbon culture" of the South, Southern border states, and prairie states--noting that all "thirteen states with 75 mph speed limits ... all lopsidedly backed George W. Bush for election."
My guess is that Bad Money will be one of the five most important books of 2008. I highly recommend it to Legal Schnauzer readers. And an excellent way to prepare for Bad Money would be to read The Politics of Rich and Poor.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Jack-Booted Thugs, Part II
Amidst all the buzz generated by the Don Siegelman story on 60 Minutes, we've departed for a while from my own story as a victim of corrupt Republicans. But let's return to that subject because a lot is happening on the home front--literally.
In a previous post, we noted that George W. Bush might be remembered more for the domestic terrorism he sponsored than for the international terrorism he supposedly fought. I've seen the tactics of the modern GOP in an up close and personal way.
What tools of terrorism are Loyal Bushies employing against my wife and me in Shelby County, Alabama?
In Part I of this post, I noted that the Republican honchos in my home county, so far, have relied on bogus legal documents.
It started with what is known as a writ of execution, and I posted about our receipt of this document here. A writ of execution, when used legitimately, means a judgment has been found against you in court and the opposing party is trying to collect. The writ of execution sent to us listed our two cars and our house as property to be seized in order to satisfy the judgment debt I allegedly owed.
What was the amount of this enormous debt that could only be satisfied by threatening to take our cars and house? Well, the original "debt" was $1,525, and it was incurred in the summer of 2004. By the time the writ of execution arrived in September 2007, $30 in court costs and $674.64 in interest had been added on for a grand total of $2,229.64.
A couple of points to make at this point:
* Neither my criminally inclined neighbor (to whom the alleged "debt" was owned) nor his ethically challenged attorney had ever made any effort to collect this debt. For more than three years, I never received a phone call, a letter, nothing, saying, "Hey Bub, you need to pay up." Not quite sure how interest and court costs can be added on a debt that the creditor has made no effort to collect.
* The careful reader might have this obvious question: Why would someone threaten to seize your cars and house to satisfy a debt of roughly $1,500? If that sounds fishy to you, join the crowd.
The terrorism was just starting with the writ of execution. It was followed by at least 10 to 12 phone calls, all to my wife's cell phone, placed by Shelby County deputies Eddie Moore and Bubba Caldwell. (Strange that they would call my wife when she was not a party to the lawsuit in question; my number is listed in this thing we call a phonebook.) In one call, Bubba Caldwell (or Caldell, not sure of spelling) specifically threatened to come to our house any moment to seize our car. I posted about that charming call here.
When threats to take our cars didn't cause us to do whatever it is Shelby County authorities want us to do, we received a notice of levy. That missive was taped to our garage door, and I posted about it here. It informed us that Shelby County Sheriff Chris Curry intended to advertise and sell our house in order to satisfy this alleged debt of $1,525.
Now, our house is hardly a mansion, but it is worth considerably more than $1,525. So why would Shelby County's esteemed sheriff feel it was necessary to seize and sell our house to satisfy a debt of such a relatively paltry sum? And why would he threaten to take such a drastic step when no one has even bothered to send a simple letter asking me to pay?
It seems that Shelby County GOPers have studied at the Alice Martin/Mark Fuller School of Drama. They always seem to take the most dramatic course of action possible. Perhaps Martin and Fuller picked that one up from Osama bin Laden; seems to be a prime choice in the terrorists' playbook.
I've found that when you are dealing with corrupt Republicans in Alabama, it's hard to know whether to cry or laugh. You want to cry at the thought that people who claim to be patriots and "conservatives" would so abuse our system of government. But you want to laugh because they are such bozos. As bad as they are at governance, they might be even worse when it comes to cheating. They make little, if any, attempt to hide their corrupt motives. Consider:
* The judgment itself, the one in the amount of $1,525 is unconstitutional--That is if you consider the U.S. Constitution to be applicable in Shelby County, Alabama. (And that's a big "if" when you are dealing with a certain breed of Alabama Republican.) Without going into too many details, all of us are guaranteed due process and equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. A major part of due process includes the right to have your case heard by an impartial arbiter, a neutral judge, if you will. Seeing as how every judge who was involved in my case committed federal crimes, unlawfully favoring the opposing party, I think it's safe to say I did not receive due process or equal protection. So we have absurdity No. 1: The judgment against me is unconstitutional.
* The writ of execution itself is invalid--If you have a legitimate judgment against you, it would be a good idea to become familiar with Rule 69 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure (ARCP). That outlines the procedure for issuance of a writ of execution, which the judgment creditor can use to come after you, the judgment debtor. But the writ has to be done a certain way. It must include two items--the writ itself and what is called a "Notice of Right to Claim Exemption From Execution." (Form 92, ARCP.) Contrary to what Shelby County Clerk Mary Harris and Sheriff Chris Curry evidently want me to believe, they cannot just haul off and start seizing anything they want--at least not by law. (And that's assuming state law applies in Shelby County--another big "if;" I wasn't kidding when I referred to this place as a banana republic.) A judgment debtor has a right to claim certain property as exempt from seizure or sale. And by law, a judgment debtor must be notified of that right. A writ of execution without that notice is about as worthless as a used hot-dog wrapper. Absurdity No. 2: The writ of execution against me is invalid.
* The notice of levy itself is invalid--Such a notice on real property, like the writ of execution, requires that the judgment debtor be notified of his right to claim exemption from levy. Absurdity No. 3: The notice of levy against me is invalid.
* What about the obvious "solution?"--As I've stated numerous times on this blog, I am not a lawyer. But common sense would seem to dictate that opposing counsel take one of two steps to satisfy a judgment of roughly $1,500: Write a letter demanding that the amount be paid, and if that doesn't work, seek to garnish the debtor's wages. Seems pretty simple, but the other side evidently has no interest in taking that approach. Absurdity No. 4: No one seems interested in garnishment.
* This little matter of jointly owned property--Our house, and our cars, are jointly owned. Again I'm not a lawyer, and I haven't bothered looking up the law on this because the law never matters in Shelby County anyway. But it seems pretty clear that authorities cannot sell our house, when it is jointly owned by my wife--and she was not a party to this lawsuit. And here's what's nutty: We tried to make my wife a party to the lawsuit, or at least my counterclaim. After all, she was harmed every bit as much as I was by our neighbor's wrongful actions. But the Hon. Judge Dan Reeves would not allow it. So the other side made sure my wife was not a party and now they are trying to take away property that she co-owns. As I noted before, this sounds like a story for Oprah: How my husband got sued, and I had my house stolen from me! Absurdity No. 5: My wife is joint owner of our house, and she was not a party to the lawsuit, but Republican honchos are trying to steal her house anyway.
Those are all of the absurdities I can think of, for now. I'm sure I will think of more. But here is the key thing to remember: The point of all of this is terrorism. On 9/11, the folks behind those attacks did not have any interest in the World Trade Center or the Pentagon. There was an ulterior motive behind the attacks on those sites. They wanted to send a message--of fear.
A similar plan is afoot in my battle with the terrorists who run Shelby County, Alabama. They aren't really interested in satisfying a judgment of $1,500. Heck, that "debt" was sitting out there for more than three years, and no one ever made any effort to collect. And if you truly want $1,500, you start with two steps--you demand in writing that it be paid, and if that doesn't work, you attempt to garnish it.
But the terrorists of Shelby County don't want to take such undramatic steps. They want to send a message. And the message is this: "You'd better stop blogging, Bub, because we're not used to someone standing up to us. And we sure as hell aren't used to someone telling the public the truth about our dirty deeds. You and this newfangled blog thing are making us mighty uncomfortable, so we are going to turn to our inner bully in an effort to shut you up--no matter how stupid we look in the process."
Actually, I strongly suspect that this plan goes well beyond Shelby County. I believe this now is being driven by folks with statewide authority. Why do I think that? And who do I think is behind it?
We'll address those questions in a bit.
In a previous post, we noted that George W. Bush might be remembered more for the domestic terrorism he sponsored than for the international terrorism he supposedly fought. I've seen the tactics of the modern GOP in an up close and personal way.
What tools of terrorism are Loyal Bushies employing against my wife and me in Shelby County, Alabama?
In Part I of this post, I noted that the Republican honchos in my home county, so far, have relied on bogus legal documents.
It started with what is known as a writ of execution, and I posted about our receipt of this document here. A writ of execution, when used legitimately, means a judgment has been found against you in court and the opposing party is trying to collect. The writ of execution sent to us listed our two cars and our house as property to be seized in order to satisfy the judgment debt I allegedly owed.
What was the amount of this enormous debt that could only be satisfied by threatening to take our cars and house? Well, the original "debt" was $1,525, and it was incurred in the summer of 2004. By the time the writ of execution arrived in September 2007, $30 in court costs and $674.64 in interest had been added on for a grand total of $2,229.64.
A couple of points to make at this point:
* Neither my criminally inclined neighbor (to whom the alleged "debt" was owned) nor his ethically challenged attorney had ever made any effort to collect this debt. For more than three years, I never received a phone call, a letter, nothing, saying, "Hey Bub, you need to pay up." Not quite sure how interest and court costs can be added on a debt that the creditor has made no effort to collect.
* The careful reader might have this obvious question: Why would someone threaten to seize your cars and house to satisfy a debt of roughly $1,500? If that sounds fishy to you, join the crowd.
The terrorism was just starting with the writ of execution. It was followed by at least 10 to 12 phone calls, all to my wife's cell phone, placed by Shelby County deputies Eddie Moore and Bubba Caldwell. (Strange that they would call my wife when she was not a party to the lawsuit in question; my number is listed in this thing we call a phonebook.) In one call, Bubba Caldwell (or Caldell, not sure of spelling) specifically threatened to come to our house any moment to seize our car. I posted about that charming call here.
When threats to take our cars didn't cause us to do whatever it is Shelby County authorities want us to do, we received a notice of levy. That missive was taped to our garage door, and I posted about it here. It informed us that Shelby County Sheriff Chris Curry intended to advertise and sell our house in order to satisfy this alleged debt of $1,525.
Now, our house is hardly a mansion, but it is worth considerably more than $1,525. So why would Shelby County's esteemed sheriff feel it was necessary to seize and sell our house to satisfy a debt of such a relatively paltry sum? And why would he threaten to take such a drastic step when no one has even bothered to send a simple letter asking me to pay?
It seems that Shelby County GOPers have studied at the Alice Martin/Mark Fuller School of Drama. They always seem to take the most dramatic course of action possible. Perhaps Martin and Fuller picked that one up from Osama bin Laden; seems to be a prime choice in the terrorists' playbook.
I've found that when you are dealing with corrupt Republicans in Alabama, it's hard to know whether to cry or laugh. You want to cry at the thought that people who claim to be patriots and "conservatives" would so abuse our system of government. But you want to laugh because they are such bozos. As bad as they are at governance, they might be even worse when it comes to cheating. They make little, if any, attempt to hide their corrupt motives. Consider:
* The judgment itself, the one in the amount of $1,525 is unconstitutional--That is if you consider the U.S. Constitution to be applicable in Shelby County, Alabama. (And that's a big "if" when you are dealing with a certain breed of Alabama Republican.) Without going into too many details, all of us are guaranteed due process and equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. A major part of due process includes the right to have your case heard by an impartial arbiter, a neutral judge, if you will. Seeing as how every judge who was involved in my case committed federal crimes, unlawfully favoring the opposing party, I think it's safe to say I did not receive due process or equal protection. So we have absurdity No. 1: The judgment against me is unconstitutional.
* The writ of execution itself is invalid--If you have a legitimate judgment against you, it would be a good idea to become familiar with Rule 69 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure (ARCP). That outlines the procedure for issuance of a writ of execution, which the judgment creditor can use to come after you, the judgment debtor. But the writ has to be done a certain way. It must include two items--the writ itself and what is called a "Notice of Right to Claim Exemption From Execution." (Form 92, ARCP.) Contrary to what Shelby County Clerk Mary Harris and Sheriff Chris Curry evidently want me to believe, they cannot just haul off and start seizing anything they want--at least not by law. (And that's assuming state law applies in Shelby County--another big "if;" I wasn't kidding when I referred to this place as a banana republic.) A judgment debtor has a right to claim certain property as exempt from seizure or sale. And by law, a judgment debtor must be notified of that right. A writ of execution without that notice is about as worthless as a used hot-dog wrapper. Absurdity No. 2: The writ of execution against me is invalid.
* The notice of levy itself is invalid--Such a notice on real property, like the writ of execution, requires that the judgment debtor be notified of his right to claim exemption from levy. Absurdity No. 3: The notice of levy against me is invalid.
* What about the obvious "solution?"--As I've stated numerous times on this blog, I am not a lawyer. But common sense would seem to dictate that opposing counsel take one of two steps to satisfy a judgment of roughly $1,500: Write a letter demanding that the amount be paid, and if that doesn't work, seek to garnish the debtor's wages. Seems pretty simple, but the other side evidently has no interest in taking that approach. Absurdity No. 4: No one seems interested in garnishment.
* This little matter of jointly owned property--Our house, and our cars, are jointly owned. Again I'm not a lawyer, and I haven't bothered looking up the law on this because the law never matters in Shelby County anyway. But it seems pretty clear that authorities cannot sell our house, when it is jointly owned by my wife--and she was not a party to this lawsuit. And here's what's nutty: We tried to make my wife a party to the lawsuit, or at least my counterclaim. After all, she was harmed every bit as much as I was by our neighbor's wrongful actions. But the Hon. Judge Dan Reeves would not allow it. So the other side made sure my wife was not a party and now they are trying to take away property that she co-owns. As I noted before, this sounds like a story for Oprah: How my husband got sued, and I had my house stolen from me! Absurdity No. 5: My wife is joint owner of our house, and she was not a party to the lawsuit, but Republican honchos are trying to steal her house anyway.
Those are all of the absurdities I can think of, for now. I'm sure I will think of more. But here is the key thing to remember: The point of all of this is terrorism. On 9/11, the folks behind those attacks did not have any interest in the World Trade Center or the Pentagon. There was an ulterior motive behind the attacks on those sites. They wanted to send a message--of fear.
A similar plan is afoot in my battle with the terrorists who run Shelby County, Alabama. They aren't really interested in satisfying a judgment of $1,500. Heck, that "debt" was sitting out there for more than three years, and no one ever made any effort to collect. And if you truly want $1,500, you start with two steps--you demand in writing that it be paid, and if that doesn't work, you attempt to garnish it.
But the terrorists of Shelby County don't want to take such undramatic steps. They want to send a message. And the message is this: "You'd better stop blogging, Bub, because we're not used to someone standing up to us. And we sure as hell aren't used to someone telling the public the truth about our dirty deeds. You and this newfangled blog thing are making us mighty uncomfortable, so we are going to turn to our inner bully in an effort to shut you up--no matter how stupid we look in the process."
Actually, I strongly suspect that this plan goes well beyond Shelby County. I believe this now is being driven by folks with statewide authority. Why do I think that? And who do I think is behind it?
We'll address those questions in a bit.
The Schnauzer: NCAA Tournament Edition
When I'm not fighting corrupt judges, lawyers, and other bad guys, I'm a pretty serious sports fan. In fact, I used to make my living as a sportswriter, so I guess I come by that interest naturally.
I live in Birmingham, otherwise known as "The Football Capital of the South." But for my money, the greatest event in sports is the NCAA men's basketball tournament, better known as "March Madness." And the madness begins tomorrow at sites around the country.
One of those sites, where play will be on Friday and Sunday, is the Birmingham-Jefferson Convention Complex Arena. Also, one of our native sons provides a splendid tournament story.
So let's take time out from corruption and such to celebrate the greatest show in sports.
I've had the good fortune to cover a number of NCAA Tournaments, and I would take it over the World Series, the Super Bowl, you name it. Nothing generates genuine emotion and fascinating backstories like the NCAA Tournament. And for sportswriters, there's a ton of free food. (Ever wonder why you rarely see a slim sportswriter? That's the reason. There's free food everywhere they go.)
Birmingham's regional will feature four intriguing matchups--South Alabama vs. Butler, Boise State vs. Louisville, American vs. Tennessee, and St. Joseph's vs. Oklahoma.
But here's the cool thing: Cornell of the Ivy League is in the tournament for the first time in 20 years. And the Big Red is led by a kid from Birmingham.
Ray Melick, of The Birmingham News, writes today about Louis Dale Jr., a sophomore guard who was Player of the Year in the Ivy League. Basketball in the Ivy League has been dominated for years by Princeton and Penn. But Cornell crashed the party this year, thanks to a little guard with big-time skills from Birmingham's Altamont School.
You don't get into Cornell--or the Altamont School, for that matter--unless you are awfully sharp, and Dale has the academic goods. He is majoring in human ecology, with an interest in policy analysis. Dale's coach says he has the talent to someday challenge for a spot in the NBA. But there is no telling what this kid might accomplish off the court.
Dale comes by his academic credentials honestly. His father, Louis Dale Sr., is a mathematician and administrator at UAB (University of Alabama in Birmingham.)
Cornell plays powerful Stanford this afternoon at Anaheim, California, and the Big Red will be a heavy underdog. But win or lose, keep an eye on Louis Dale Jr.--both on and off the court. You can read more about him here.
I live in Birmingham, otherwise known as "The Football Capital of the South." But for my money, the greatest event in sports is the NCAA men's basketball tournament, better known as "March Madness." And the madness begins tomorrow at sites around the country.
One of those sites, where play will be on Friday and Sunday, is the Birmingham-Jefferson Convention Complex Arena. Also, one of our native sons provides a splendid tournament story.
So let's take time out from corruption and such to celebrate the greatest show in sports.
I've had the good fortune to cover a number of NCAA Tournaments, and I would take it over the World Series, the Super Bowl, you name it. Nothing generates genuine emotion and fascinating backstories like the NCAA Tournament. And for sportswriters, there's a ton of free food. (Ever wonder why you rarely see a slim sportswriter? That's the reason. There's free food everywhere they go.)
Birmingham's regional will feature four intriguing matchups--South Alabama vs. Butler, Boise State vs. Louisville, American vs. Tennessee, and St. Joseph's vs. Oklahoma.
But here's the cool thing: Cornell of the Ivy League is in the tournament for the first time in 20 years. And the Big Red is led by a kid from Birmingham.
Ray Melick, of The Birmingham News, writes today about Louis Dale Jr., a sophomore guard who was Player of the Year in the Ivy League. Basketball in the Ivy League has been dominated for years by Princeton and Penn. But Cornell crashed the party this year, thanks to a little guard with big-time skills from Birmingham's Altamont School.
You don't get into Cornell--or the Altamont School, for that matter--unless you are awfully sharp, and Dale has the academic goods. He is majoring in human ecology, with an interest in policy analysis. Dale's coach says he has the talent to someday challenge for a spot in the NBA. But there is no telling what this kid might accomplish off the court.
Dale comes by his academic credentials honestly. His father, Louis Dale Sr., is a mathematician and administrator at UAB (University of Alabama in Birmingham.)
Cornell plays powerful Stanford this afternoon at Anaheim, California, and the Big Red will be a heavy underdog. But win or lose, keep an eye on Louis Dale Jr.--both on and off the court. You can read more about him here.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Was the Siegelman Jury on Drugs?
I recently had cause to conduct some research on the Don Siegelman trial and discovered something interesting: There are a whole lot of myths about this case.
Why was I going back into the archives to read up on the trial from 2006? Well, you might say Eddie Curran made me do it.
When the erstwhile Mobile Press-Register reporter and would-be author decided to launch a written assault on Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson, Harper's legal-affairs contributor Scott Horton, and 60 Minutes, I read the stuff with considerable interest.
I suspected Curran was blowing copious amounts of stale air, but I couldn't be sure without doing some research. My trips to the archives confirmed what I suspected about Curran's most recent writings. But they also taught me quite a bit about the Siegelman case.
For example, let's consider these myths:
* The case was about bribery--Actually, the case was mostly about honest-services mail fraud. Roughly two-thirds of the charges against Siegelman and codefendant Richard Scrushy involved honest-services mail fraud. And five of the seven counts on which Siegelman was convicted related to honest-services mail fraud. He was convicted of only one count of bribery.
* The case was primarily about the $500,000 contribution from Scrushy to Siegelman's education lottery fund--Based on the jury's verdict, it was not about the money. As we noted earlier, the conviction was built overwhelmingly on honest-services mail fraud. And by law, honest-services mail fraud is not a crime about money. It can involve the transfer of gifts, cash, and favors. But money is not a necessary element of the crime. You can check out the elements of the crime here. The key finding regarding money is:
Do public officials have to receive personal gain from their scheme? This is a matter of considerable debate. At least one judicial circuit has said yes. Most circuits have said no. In general, courts have held: "The prosecution need not prove that the scheme was successful or that the intended victim suffered a loss, or that the defendant secured a gain. The gist of the offense is a scheme to defraud and the use of interstate communications to further that scheme." U.S. vs. Louderman, 576 F. 2d 1383, (1978)
* If the case wasn't about money, then what was it about?--Based on the jury verdict, it was primarily about the fact that Don Siegelman appointed Richard Scrushy to the Alabama Certificate of Need Board, which regulates hospitals. How do we know this? Because we know that honest-services mail fraud is not about money. Here is the crux of the crime that made up five-sevenths of the Siegelman conviction:
"Even if a public official engages in 'reprehensible misconduct related to an official position,' his conviction for honest services fraud cannot stand where the conduct does not actually deprive the public of its right to [his] honest services, and it is not shown to intend the result." U.S. v. Walker, 490 F. 3d 1282 (2007).
* But Scrushy was appointed to this board by three previous governors!--Exactly. And that's why I asked the question in the headline: Was the Siegelman jury on drugs? Again, money was not an issue in five of the seven counts for which Siegelman was convicted, so forget about the $500,000 donation from Scrushy. Based on the jury's verdict, here was the key question: Was Richard Scrushy qualified to serve on the CON board? Well, three previous governors had found him to be qualified. As founder and CEO of HealthSouth, Scrushy knew the health-care ropes. The only way Don Siegelman could have "deprived the public of its right to [his] honest services" would have been to appoint someone who wasn't qualified for the position. That clearly did not occur. So five of the seven counts upon which Siegelman was convicted must be pitched out the window.
* Well, former lobbyist Lanny Young played a big role in the trial, right?--Not according to the jury. Six of the seven guilty verdicts had to do with the Scrushy/Siegelman activity. The only guilty verdict involving Young was for obstruction of justice. By definition, obstruction of justice can occur only after an investigation has begun and is dependent on other charges. If the five mail fraud convictions are tossed, as they should have been, then the obstruction conviction is resting on a very weak foundation.
* That leaves us with one count of bribery--And for that charge, the government's star witness was former Siegelman aide Nick Bailey. How unreliable was Bailey as a witness? Consider these snippets from The Birmingham News' coverage:
Bailey also admitted his initial recollections to a grand jury were incorrect. He said that, after meeting with Scrushy in 1999, Siegelman showed him a check for $250,000 signed by Scrushy. On the date Bailey recalled, the check hadn't been written, and the check was from a Maryland land company, not signed by Scrushy.
---------------------
Defense lawyers showed that Bailey's initial recollection to prosecutors about the meeting between Scrushy and Siegelman had to be false. Bailey said that after the meeting, Siegelman showed him a check Scrushy had given him, but the check was dated later. Bailey admitted he wasn't sure when the meeting occurred.
--------------------
McDonald set out testimony that Bailey had racked up thousands in debts trading stocks on credit while was a member of Siegelman's cabinet. McDonald said the debts totaled $250,000.
---------------------
Earlier in the week, Bailey testified that Scrushy made campaign contributions to get a seat on the state Certificate of Need Review Board. But under cross-examination by Scrushy lawyer Art Leach, Bailey said he was never in the room when his boss met with Scrushy.
That's enough reasonable doubt on the bribery count to give Shaquille O'Neal a hernia. And yet Don Siegelman and Richard Scrushy are in federal prison.
So were the Siegelman jurors on drugs? I ask that question in jest; I suspect they were honest, hard-working folks trying to do a thankless task. But we know they were under the influence of a judge who appears to have had an agenda in the case. And that might have been all it took to make the jurors look like a bunch of whack jobs.
What, ultimately, did I learn from my research? The Siegelman conviction looks nasty from a distance. And it looks even uglier up close.
Why was I going back into the archives to read up on the trial from 2006? Well, you might say Eddie Curran made me do it.
When the erstwhile Mobile Press-Register reporter and would-be author decided to launch a written assault on Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson, Harper's legal-affairs contributor Scott Horton, and 60 Minutes, I read the stuff with considerable interest.
I suspected Curran was blowing copious amounts of stale air, but I couldn't be sure without doing some research. My trips to the archives confirmed what I suspected about Curran's most recent writings. But they also taught me quite a bit about the Siegelman case.
For example, let's consider these myths:
* The case was about bribery--Actually, the case was mostly about honest-services mail fraud. Roughly two-thirds of the charges against Siegelman and codefendant Richard Scrushy involved honest-services mail fraud. And five of the seven counts on which Siegelman was convicted related to honest-services mail fraud. He was convicted of only one count of bribery.
* The case was primarily about the $500,000 contribution from Scrushy to Siegelman's education lottery fund--Based on the jury's verdict, it was not about the money. As we noted earlier, the conviction was built overwhelmingly on honest-services mail fraud. And by law, honest-services mail fraud is not a crime about money. It can involve the transfer of gifts, cash, and favors. But money is not a necessary element of the crime. You can check out the elements of the crime here. The key finding regarding money is:
Do public officials have to receive personal gain from their scheme? This is a matter of considerable debate. At least one judicial circuit has said yes. Most circuits have said no. In general, courts have held: "The prosecution need not prove that the scheme was successful or that the intended victim suffered a loss, or that the defendant secured a gain. The gist of the offense is a scheme to defraud and the use of interstate communications to further that scheme." U.S. vs. Louderman, 576 F. 2d 1383, (1978)
* If the case wasn't about money, then what was it about?--Based on the jury verdict, it was primarily about the fact that Don Siegelman appointed Richard Scrushy to the Alabama Certificate of Need Board, which regulates hospitals. How do we know this? Because we know that honest-services mail fraud is not about money. Here is the crux of the crime that made up five-sevenths of the Siegelman conviction:
"Even if a public official engages in 'reprehensible misconduct related to an official position,' his conviction for honest services fraud cannot stand where the conduct does not actually deprive the public of its right to [his] honest services, and it is not shown to intend the result." U.S. v. Walker, 490 F. 3d 1282 (2007).
* But Scrushy was appointed to this board by three previous governors!--Exactly. And that's why I asked the question in the headline: Was the Siegelman jury on drugs? Again, money was not an issue in five of the seven counts for which Siegelman was convicted, so forget about the $500,000 donation from Scrushy. Based on the jury's verdict, here was the key question: Was Richard Scrushy qualified to serve on the CON board? Well, three previous governors had found him to be qualified. As founder and CEO of HealthSouth, Scrushy knew the health-care ropes. The only way Don Siegelman could have "deprived the public of its right to [his] honest services" would have been to appoint someone who wasn't qualified for the position. That clearly did not occur. So five of the seven counts upon which Siegelman was convicted must be pitched out the window.
* Well, former lobbyist Lanny Young played a big role in the trial, right?--Not according to the jury. Six of the seven guilty verdicts had to do with the Scrushy/Siegelman activity. The only guilty verdict involving Young was for obstruction of justice. By definition, obstruction of justice can occur only after an investigation has begun and is dependent on other charges. If the five mail fraud convictions are tossed, as they should have been, then the obstruction conviction is resting on a very weak foundation.
* That leaves us with one count of bribery--And for that charge, the government's star witness was former Siegelman aide Nick Bailey. How unreliable was Bailey as a witness? Consider these snippets from The Birmingham News' coverage:
Bailey also admitted his initial recollections to a grand jury were incorrect. He said that, after meeting with Scrushy in 1999, Siegelman showed him a check for $250,000 signed by Scrushy. On the date Bailey recalled, the check hadn't been written, and the check was from a Maryland land company, not signed by Scrushy.
---------------------
Defense lawyers showed that Bailey's initial recollection to prosecutors about the meeting between Scrushy and Siegelman had to be false. Bailey said that after the meeting, Siegelman showed him a check Scrushy had given him, but the check was dated later. Bailey admitted he wasn't sure when the meeting occurred.
--------------------
McDonald set out testimony that Bailey had racked up thousands in debts trading stocks on credit while was a member of Siegelman's cabinet. McDonald said the debts totaled $250,000.
---------------------
Earlier in the week, Bailey testified that Scrushy made campaign contributions to get a seat on the state Certificate of Need Review Board. But under cross-examination by Scrushy lawyer Art Leach, Bailey said he was never in the room when his boss met with Scrushy.
That's enough reasonable doubt on the bribery count to give Shaquille O'Neal a hernia. And yet Don Siegelman and Richard Scrushy are in federal prison.
So were the Siegelman jurors on drugs? I ask that question in jest; I suspect they were honest, hard-working folks trying to do a thankless task. But we know they were under the influence of a judge who appears to have had an agenda in the case. And that might have been all it took to make the jurors look like a bunch of whack jobs.
What, ultimately, did I learn from my research? The Siegelman conviction looks nasty from a distance. And it looks even uglier up close.
This Land is My Land
We've noted a number of times the central role real property plays in our Legal Schnauzer story. Let's look at a few other property-related stories that have been in the news lately:
Think this sounds nuts. So did Don Kirlin and his wife, who saw part of their property taken away. "This scares the hell out of landowners," Kirlin said. He and his wife first thought the adverse-possession action was a joke. Interestingly, squatter Richard McLean is a former judge. Hmmm.
The nuttiness doesn't stop there. McLean and Stevens said they planted a garden, stacked firewood, and held parties on the vacant lot. They say they walked the land so often that they wore a path in the grass.
And get this? Had Stevens or McLean, or any of their partygoers, been hurt on the property, they could have sued the Kirlins. The Kirlins insurance probably would have provided coverage, but they might have faced much higher premiums or even been dropped by their insurer.
See why I took it seriously when my nutjob neighbor and his minions started trying to take over my property?
Immigration and Property Rights
Immigration evidently will be a hot topic throughout the 2008 presidential campaign. But the issue goes beyond people crossing the American border illegally. It also involves property rights.
The Associated Press reports that landowners in South Texas are gaining legal ground in their efforts to keep the federal government from meeting Congress' demand for 670 miles of fencing along the Mexican border by the end of the year.
An earlier story provided details about the U.S. Justice Department and its legal action against landowners and municipalities who have refused to give government surveyors access to their land.
Eloisa Tamez owns three acres along the border, and she has no intention of helping the government build its fence. About 100 other landowners have joined her. "I will not allow them to come and survey my land. I have an American-given right to protect my property," she says.
She ought to try telling that to the "conservative" judges in Shelby County, Alabama.
In the border-fence litigation, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen ordered the government to first try to negotiate the price of access with landowners.
Hanen evidently is the rare Bush appointee who cares at least a little about the rights of regular folks. It's possible Hanen just wants to look like he cares about the "little guy." But that's more than we can say for most Bushies.
Hanen has repeatedly denied government motions for immediate access and instead has held hearings for property owners to voice their concerns before ultimately siding with the government.
How much has the government offered Tamez for six months access to her property? A grand sum of $100.
The Doctrine of Adverse Possession
A Colorado couple recently lost one-third of their property in the Boulder area when a couple that lives next door to the vacant lot claimed it as their own.
The Los Angeles Times reports that Richard McLean and Edith Stevens had trespassed on the vacant lot for more than 20 years. The couple eventually claimed the land as their own under Colorado's adverse possession law, once known as squatter's rights. A district judge awarded them one-third of the lot, which its owner values at $1 million.Think this sounds nuts. So did Don Kirlin and his wife, who saw part of their property taken away. "This scares the hell out of landowners," Kirlin said. He and his wife first thought the adverse-possession action was a joke. Interestingly, squatter Richard McLean is a former judge. Hmmm.
The nuttiness doesn't stop there. McLean and Stevens said they planted a garden, stacked firewood, and held parties on the vacant lot. They say they walked the land so often that they wore a path in the grass.
And get this? Had Stevens or McLean, or any of their partygoers, been hurt on the property, they could have sued the Kirlins. The Kirlins insurance probably would have provided coverage, but they might have faced much higher premiums or even been dropped by their insurer.
See why I took it seriously when my nutjob neighbor and his minions started trying to take over my property?
Monday, March 17, 2008
The Ashcroft and Abramoff Tango
I've long had a special interest in the activities of former Bush Attorney General John Ashcroft.
Ashcroft is from Springfield, Missouri, my humble hometown. And Ashcroft comes by his God-Squad credentials honestly because he grew up in the Assemblies of God, which has its international headquarters in Springfield.
A number of my family members, conservatives to the core these days, seem to think that Ashcroft is a salt-of-the-earth sort. I don't happen to share those views. (How did my family become a bunch of conservatives? I've been asking myself that question for about 15 years now. My mother grew up in rural Arkansas and used to regale me with stories of all that FDR did to help her family and friends survive the Great Depression. She used to love to read books about the Kennedys and didn't even seem to mind it when tales started to surface about JFK's unsavory activities with members of the fairer sex. But when I announced in 1992 that I planned to vote for Bill Clinton, my mother looked at me like I had lost my mind. Somewhere between 1980 and 1992 some tectonic shift occurred in my family's politics, and with me being in Alabama most of the time, I wasn't aware of it taking place. Evidently, for reasons I still find hard to figure, similar shifts took place in many white, middle-class families. And our country continues to pay a huge price for that.)
Anyway, back to John Ashcroft. The favorability ratings for my Missouri homeboy didn't go up here at Legal Schnauzer after reading Scott Horton's post today about the vanishing Jack Abramoff investigation.
And why has the Abramoff case, which Horton calls the most important public-corruption scandal in the nation's history, been off the radar screen? Well, looks like we can thank John Ashcroft for that, to a great degree.
Turns out my God-Squad homeboy was wading in the Abramoff muck with hip boots. Horton points out at least six close connections Ashcroft had to Abramoff. And when the U.S. attorney in the Northern Marianas began to raise questions about Abramoff's activities there, Ashcroft had the USA removed from office.
When demands were made for a special prosecutor to handle the Abramoff matter, Ashcroft denied them.
Few people on the planet probably have benefited from Ashcroft's coverup quite like Alabama Governor Bob Riley. What does that mean for those of us who live in Alabama. It means we have people like Bill Canary and Dax Swatek close to the seat of power in our state. It means we have an unholy alliance between state government and federal prosecutors such as Alice Martin and Leura Canary. It means we have a corrupt state judiciary that feels free to trample the law and cost the state billions of dollars.
I'm sure you could not convince many of the folks in Southwest Missouri that John Ashcroft has helped cover for one of the sleaziest figures in U.S. history. And many Alabamians probably do not realize just how much that cover up has cost our state.
Will we ever get to the bottom of the Jack Abramoff scandal? Will we ever know Bob Riley's true connections to Abramoff, ties that GOP presidential candidate John McCain evidently helped keep under wraps?
Horton doesn't seem to be terribly optimistic about it. If we don't get to the bottom of the Abramoff case, it's pretty much a certainty that more Jack Abramoffs are waiting in the wings. And I wouldn't be surprised if they are being groomed in Alabama.
Ashcroft is from Springfield, Missouri, my humble hometown. And Ashcroft comes by his God-Squad credentials honestly because he grew up in the Assemblies of God, which has its international headquarters in Springfield.
A number of my family members, conservatives to the core these days, seem to think that Ashcroft is a salt-of-the-earth sort. I don't happen to share those views. (How did my family become a bunch of conservatives? I've been asking myself that question for about 15 years now. My mother grew up in rural Arkansas and used to regale me with stories of all that FDR did to help her family and friends survive the Great Depression. She used to love to read books about the Kennedys and didn't even seem to mind it when tales started to surface about JFK's unsavory activities with members of the fairer sex. But when I announced in 1992 that I planned to vote for Bill Clinton, my mother looked at me like I had lost my mind. Somewhere between 1980 and 1992 some tectonic shift occurred in my family's politics, and with me being in Alabama most of the time, I wasn't aware of it taking place. Evidently, for reasons I still find hard to figure, similar shifts took place in many white, middle-class families. And our country continues to pay a huge price for that.)
Anyway, back to John Ashcroft. The favorability ratings for my Missouri homeboy didn't go up here at Legal Schnauzer after reading Scott Horton's post today about the vanishing Jack Abramoff investigation.
And why has the Abramoff case, which Horton calls the most important public-corruption scandal in the nation's history, been off the radar screen? Well, looks like we can thank John Ashcroft for that, to a great degree.
Turns out my God-Squad homeboy was wading in the Abramoff muck with hip boots. Horton points out at least six close connections Ashcroft had to Abramoff. And when the U.S. attorney in the Northern Marianas began to raise questions about Abramoff's activities there, Ashcroft had the USA removed from office.
When demands were made for a special prosecutor to handle the Abramoff matter, Ashcroft denied them.
Few people on the planet probably have benefited from Ashcroft's coverup quite like Alabama Governor Bob Riley. What does that mean for those of us who live in Alabama. It means we have people like Bill Canary and Dax Swatek close to the seat of power in our state. It means we have an unholy alliance between state government and federal prosecutors such as Alice Martin and Leura Canary. It means we have a corrupt state judiciary that feels free to trample the law and cost the state billions of dollars.
I'm sure you could not convince many of the folks in Southwest Missouri that John Ashcroft has helped cover for one of the sleaziest figures in U.S. history. And many Alabamians probably do not realize just how much that cover up has cost our state.
Will we ever get to the bottom of the Jack Abramoff scandal? Will we ever know Bob Riley's true connections to Abramoff, ties that GOP presidential candidate John McCain evidently helped keep under wraps?
Horton doesn't seem to be terribly optimistic about it. If we don't get to the bottom of the Abramoff case, it's pretty much a certainty that more Jack Abramoffs are waiting in the wings. And I wouldn't be surprised if they are being groomed in Alabama.
Witnesses, Pressure, and the Siegelman Case
We recently noted that the affidavit of Judy White (wife of former Jefferson County Commissioner Gary White) raises this troubling question:
Are people who plead guilty actually guilty?
Judy White's affidavit focused on the extraordinary pressure federal agents applied in an effort to get her husband to present false testimony against former Governor Don Siegelman. When White refused to give doctored testimony, he wound up the subject of a federal investigation himself, just as the federal agents had promised.
Gary White, like Don Siegelman, wound up being convicted on a variety of corruption-related charges.
But Judy White's affidavit raises another troubling question: Can we trust the testimony of the witnesses who helped secure the convictions of Gary White and Don Siegelman?
If federal agents tried to pressure Gary White into giving false testimony against Siegelman, one has to think that they applied similar pressure to other potential witnesses. Without a transcript in the Siegelman case, it's hard to know what key evidence led to his conviction. But news reports indicate that testimony of former Siegelman aide Nick Bailey and former lobbyist Lanny Young was critical.
In light of Judy White's affidavit, one must ask this question: What kind of pressure were Bailey and Young under to testify against Siegelman? And did they cave in to that pressure, under the kinds of threat that were directed at Gary White?
And what about Gary White's own case? News reports indicate he was convicted primarily on the testimony of Sohan Singh, a Birmingham engineer with U.S. Infrastructure, Inc., who said he gave White envelopes of cash in exchange for favorable treatment. I see little, if any, references in news reports to physical evidence in the case.
Oral testimony seems to have been the key to conviction, but what kind of pressure was Singh under to testify against White?
If Judy White's affidavit is correct, if federal agencies truly are pressuring witnesses to give false testimony, then our justice system is broken at its very core.
Are people who plead guilty actually guilty?
Judy White's affidavit focused on the extraordinary pressure federal agents applied in an effort to get her husband to present false testimony against former Governor Don Siegelman. When White refused to give doctored testimony, he wound up the subject of a federal investigation himself, just as the federal agents had promised.
Gary White, like Don Siegelman, wound up being convicted on a variety of corruption-related charges.
But Judy White's affidavit raises another troubling question: Can we trust the testimony of the witnesses who helped secure the convictions of Gary White and Don Siegelman?
If federal agents tried to pressure Gary White into giving false testimony against Siegelman, one has to think that they applied similar pressure to other potential witnesses. Without a transcript in the Siegelman case, it's hard to know what key evidence led to his conviction. But news reports indicate that testimony of former Siegelman aide Nick Bailey and former lobbyist Lanny Young was critical.
In light of Judy White's affidavit, one must ask this question: What kind of pressure were Bailey and Young under to testify against Siegelman? And did they cave in to that pressure, under the kinds of threat that were directed at Gary White?
And what about Gary White's own case? News reports indicate he was convicted primarily on the testimony of Sohan Singh, a Birmingham engineer with U.S. Infrastructure, Inc., who said he gave White envelopes of cash in exchange for favorable treatment. I see little, if any, references in news reports to physical evidence in the case.
Oral testimony seems to have been the key to conviction, but what kind of pressure was Singh under to testify against White?
If Judy White's affidavit is correct, if federal agencies truly are pressuring witnesses to give false testimony, then our justice system is broken at its very core.
Buyer Beware in Alabama
A number of readers have been kind enough to praise my layman's efforts to report on legal and justice issues. Some have noted that I've obviously made a serious effort to research the law.
I appreciate those kind words, but the truth is this: I had to get serious about research because I was so ignorant of the law when my legal travails began about nine years ago.
Just how dense was I when the Legal Schnauzer story was born? Well, I couldn't have told you the difference between real property and personal property. Think I've finally got that one figured out. Real property is land and the things that are attached to land, as in real estate. (This sounds like that great scene from Trading Places, where the old dudes are trying to explain the commodities market to Eddie Murphy by using a bacon, lettuce, and tomato sandwich as an illustration.) Personal property is the other stuff we own--wallets, cars, cash, toothpicks, you name it.
Real property is at the heart of our Legal Schnauzer story. After all, our little tale began because of efforts by my wife and me, under the law, to protect our real-property rights. One of the ideas that separates the United States and other democracies from "state" governments is that our real property is supposed to be private. And if you intrude on someone else's private property without being licensed, privileged, or invited to be there, you are committing criminal trespass. And if your intrusion involves a thing--say a fence or some other structure you have placed on someone else's property--that is a civil trespass.
The idea of private property evidently was a new one to Mike McGarity, the new neighbor we acquired in December 1998. Given his extensive criminal record, you would think McGarity would be familiar with the law. But he wasn't. And when we sought to use the justice system to protect our private-property rights, we discovered that judges in Shelby County, Alabama--all avowed Republicans and conservatives--evidently were not familiar with real-property law either. I guess they are conservative Marxists; didn't know there was such a thing.
Repeated unlawful rulings by said judges--and they committed federal crimes in the process--took my wife and me on a most unpleasant and distressing journey, one that led to the blog you are now reading.
Part of my goal with the blog is to educate folks about issues connected to real property. I hope other people won't be as dense I was a few years back. So let's take a look at a few property-related stories that have been in the news lately:
An article in the Mobile Press-Register shows just how dangerous it is to buy a house in Alabama.
Our fair state is one of only six states that don't require sellers to tell potential purchasers of problems with a house that could hurt its sales-worthiness or desirability, according to a spokesman for the National Association of Realtors. The only cases where a seller might be held accountable under the law is for flaws that involve health or safety concerns.
"In this state, the buyer better beware," said Leonard Zumpano, a real-estate professor at the University of Alabama. The law in Alabama is summed up by the term "caveat emptor," Latin for buyer beware.
What the state needs is a "mandatory property condition disclosure" law. But Gene Marsh, a consumer law professor at the University of Alabama, says he is not surprised that the state does not have one. "We have been on the trailing edge of every major consumer protection initiative in the country," Marsh said. Gee, that's a surprise.
The Alabama Supreme Court has upheld the caveat emptor doctrine. But Marsh says, "There's nothing to stop the Legislature from changing the law or making a new law."
"Until that day arrives," reporter Sean Reilly writes, "the burden is on prospective buyers to make sure that their castle isn't in reality a financial sinkhole."
Reilly builds his story around Vinnie Orene Fennell, a 65-year-old Chickasaw, Alabama, woman who has spend thousands of dollars in repairs on a house she bought in 2005. Fennell's advice? "Have an inspector come out."
Fennell says a realtor falsely assured her that the house already had been inspected, so Fennell went ahead and closed on the purchase. She then discovered rotted flooring, a leaky roof, and faulty wiring.
This story hits home here at Legal Schnauzer because I've long suspected that Mike McGarity, my new neighbor in 1998, might have been unhappy with something about his house, leading to major legal headaches for my wife and me. I know the house had problems with water coming in the basement before McGarity bought it. The previous owner had a B-Dry System installed in an effort to address the problem, but I wonder if it was truly fixed.
Evidence in the discovery process of the bogus lawsuit McGarity filed against me indicated that he had neither an inspection nor a survey performed on the house prior to purchase. As the real-estate expert notes above, that is just asking for trouble in Alabama--buyer beware!
If water still was coming in the basement when McGarity bought it, would that qualify as a health or safety issue that could expose the seller to major liability? I think a good lawyer might have been able to make that case. In other words, I think McGarity might have had a legitimate case against the seller. But it seems someone steered him toward becoming angry at, and eventually suing, me--someone he most definitely did not have a case against.
What did this accomplish? If my theory is correct, it protected the seller, who was Fred Yancey, football coach at Briarwood Christian School, a ministry of Briarwood Presbyterian Church. We already have noted the strong ties that key figures in McGarity's lawsuit against me have to Briarwood. And we have noted Briarwood's involvement in seeing that the real-estate transaction with McGarity was done quickly--and possibly recklessly.
Is it possible that Briarwood faced serious liability had McGarity sued them for structural problems with his house? That question remains unclear. But this much is clear: He never had a case against me, but his lawyer and a Shelby County judge let the case unlawfully go on anyway.
Wonder why that was? Stay tuned.
I appreciate those kind words, but the truth is this: I had to get serious about research because I was so ignorant of the law when my legal travails began about nine years ago.
Just how dense was I when the Legal Schnauzer story was born? Well, I couldn't have told you the difference between real property and personal property. Think I've finally got that one figured out. Real property is land and the things that are attached to land, as in real estate. (This sounds like that great scene from Trading Places, where the old dudes are trying to explain the commodities market to Eddie Murphy by using a bacon, lettuce, and tomato sandwich as an illustration.) Personal property is the other stuff we own--wallets, cars, cash, toothpicks, you name it.
Real property is at the heart of our Legal Schnauzer story. After all, our little tale began because of efforts by my wife and me, under the law, to protect our real-property rights. One of the ideas that separates the United States and other democracies from "state" governments is that our real property is supposed to be private. And if you intrude on someone else's private property without being licensed, privileged, or invited to be there, you are committing criminal trespass. And if your intrusion involves a thing--say a fence or some other structure you have placed on someone else's property--that is a civil trespass.
The idea of private property evidently was a new one to Mike McGarity, the new neighbor we acquired in December 1998. Given his extensive criminal record, you would think McGarity would be familiar with the law. But he wasn't. And when we sought to use the justice system to protect our private-property rights, we discovered that judges in Shelby County, Alabama--all avowed Republicans and conservatives--evidently were not familiar with real-property law either. I guess they are conservative Marxists; didn't know there was such a thing.
Repeated unlawful rulings by said judges--and they committed federal crimes in the process--took my wife and me on a most unpleasant and distressing journey, one that led to the blog you are now reading.
Part of my goal with the blog is to educate folks about issues connected to real property. I hope other people won't be as dense I was a few years back. So let's take a look at a few property-related stories that have been in the news lately:
An article in the Mobile Press-Register shows just how dangerous it is to buy a house in Alabama.
Our fair state is one of only six states that don't require sellers to tell potential purchasers of problems with a house that could hurt its sales-worthiness or desirability, according to a spokesman for the National Association of Realtors. The only cases where a seller might be held accountable under the law is for flaws that involve health or safety concerns.
"In this state, the buyer better beware," said Leonard Zumpano, a real-estate professor at the University of Alabama. The law in Alabama is summed up by the term "caveat emptor," Latin for buyer beware.
What the state needs is a "mandatory property condition disclosure" law. But Gene Marsh, a consumer law professor at the University of Alabama, says he is not surprised that the state does not have one. "We have been on the trailing edge of every major consumer protection initiative in the country," Marsh said. Gee, that's a surprise.
The Alabama Supreme Court has upheld the caveat emptor doctrine. But Marsh says, "There's nothing to stop the Legislature from changing the law or making a new law."
"Until that day arrives," reporter Sean Reilly writes, "the burden is on prospective buyers to make sure that their castle isn't in reality a financial sinkhole."
Reilly builds his story around Vinnie Orene Fennell, a 65-year-old Chickasaw, Alabama, woman who has spend thousands of dollars in repairs on a house she bought in 2005. Fennell's advice? "Have an inspector come out."
Fennell says a realtor falsely assured her that the house already had been inspected, so Fennell went ahead and closed on the purchase. She then discovered rotted flooring, a leaky roof, and faulty wiring.
This story hits home here at Legal Schnauzer because I've long suspected that Mike McGarity, my new neighbor in 1998, might have been unhappy with something about his house, leading to major legal headaches for my wife and me. I know the house had problems with water coming in the basement before McGarity bought it. The previous owner had a B-Dry System installed in an effort to address the problem, but I wonder if it was truly fixed.
Evidence in the discovery process of the bogus lawsuit McGarity filed against me indicated that he had neither an inspection nor a survey performed on the house prior to purchase. As the real-estate expert notes above, that is just asking for trouble in Alabama--buyer beware!
If water still was coming in the basement when McGarity bought it, would that qualify as a health or safety issue that could expose the seller to major liability? I think a good lawyer might have been able to make that case. In other words, I think McGarity might have had a legitimate case against the seller. But it seems someone steered him toward becoming angry at, and eventually suing, me--someone he most definitely did not have a case against.
What did this accomplish? If my theory is correct, it protected the seller, who was Fred Yancey, football coach at Briarwood Christian School, a ministry of Briarwood Presbyterian Church. We already have noted the strong ties that key figures in McGarity's lawsuit against me have to Briarwood. And we have noted Briarwood's involvement in seeing that the real-estate transaction with McGarity was done quickly--and possibly recklessly.
Is it possible that Briarwood faced serious liability had McGarity sued them for structural problems with his house? That question remains unclear. But this much is clear: He never had a case against me, but his lawyer and a Shelby County judge let the case unlawfully go on anyway.
Wonder why that was? Stay tuned.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Eliot Spitzer and the Subprime Mortgage Mess
Former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer has left Democrats with quite a paradox.
On the one hand, Democrats are trying to take over the White House on the heels of what probably will prove to be the most corrupt administration in American history. That means Democrats need to tout their ability to govern with integrity.
By most any standard, Spitzer's repeated dalliances with high-priced call girls fails any integrity test. And for that reason, Democrats don't need to spend too much time trying to defend him.
On the other hand, the investigation that led to Spitzer's downfall raises serious questions about two of the biggest issues that will face our next president.
Issue No. 1? The politicization of the U.S. Justice Department, and Scott Horton, of Harper's, writes that Spitzer's case might be just the latest of many examples where the Bush DOJ prosecuted a person (almost always a Democrat) not a crime.
The Spitzer case, Horton notes, seems to be following the usual Bush DOJ script. Political prosecutions in BushWorld usually involve two dubious tactics--a focus on campaign fundraising and a focus on minor offenses--things that previously had not been seen as wrongdoing, much less criminal acts.
When the Spitzer story first broke, these elements did not seem to be in place. But then The New York Times reported that investigators were looking at Spitzer's possible use of campaign funds for meetings with prostitutes and possible use of car services.
Issue No. 2? The subprime mortgage mess, and investigative reporter Greg Palast says Bushies might have targeted Spitzer in retaliation for his efforts to clean up the banking and lending industries.
First, Palast provides some history of the subprime problem:
Here’s what happened. Since the Bush regime came to power, a new species of loan became the norm, the ‘sub-prime’ mortgage and its variants including loans with teeny “introductory” interest rates. From out of nowhere, a company called ‘Countrywide’ became America’s top mortgage lender, accounting for one in five home loans, a large chunk of these ‘sub-prime.’
Here’s how it worked: The Grinning Family, with US average household income, gets a $200,000 mortgage at 4% for two years. Their $955 monthly payment is 25% of their income. No problem. Their banker promises them a new mortgage, again at the cheap rate, in two years. But in two years, the promise ain’t worth a can of spam and the Grinnings are told to scram - because their house is now worth less than the mortgage. Now, the mortgage hits 9% or $1,609 plus fees to recover the “discount” they had for two years. Suddenly, payments equal 42% to 50% of pre-tax income. The Grinnings move into their Toyota.
Then we learn about the Bush approach to the growing fiasco:
Instead of regulating the banks that had run amok, Bush’s regulators went on the warpath against Spitzer and states attempting to stop predatory practices. Making an unprecedented use of the legal power of “federal pre-emption,” Bush-bots ordered the states to NOT enforce their consumer protection laws.
Indeed, the feds actually filed a lawsuit to block Spitzer’s investigation of ugly racial mortgage steering. Bush’s banking buddies were especially steamed that Spitzer hammered bank practices across the nation using New York State laws.
Spitzer not only took on Countrywide, he took on their predatory enablers in the investment banking community. Behind Countrywide was the Mother Shark, its funder and now owner, Bank of America. Others joined the sharkfest: Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and Citigroup’s Citibank made mortgage usury their major profit centers. They did this through a bit of financial legerdemain called “securitization.”
What that means is that they took a bunch of junk mortgages, like the Grinning’s, loans about to go down the toilet and re-packaged them into “tranches” of bonds which were stamped “AAA” - top grade - by bond rating agencies. These gold-painted turds were sold as sparkling safe investments to US school district pension funds and town governments in Finland (really).
When the housing bubble burst and the paint flaked off, investors were left with the poop and the bankers were left with bonuses. Countrywide’s top man, Angelo Mozilo, will ‘earn’ a $77 million buy-out bonus this year on top of the $656 million--over half a billion dollars--he pulled in from 1998 through 2007.
What happened when the you-know-what hit the fan?
Then, on Wednesday of this week, the unthinkable happened. Carlyle Capital went bankrupt. Who? That’s Carlyle as in Carlyle Group. James Baker, Senior Counsel. Notable partners, former and past: George Bush, the Bin Laden family and more dictators, potentates, pirates and presidents than you can count.
The Fed had to act. Bernanke opened the vault and dumped $200 billion on the poor little suffering bankers. They got the public treasure – and got to keep the Grinning’s house. There was no ‘quid’ of a foreclosure moratorium for the ‘pro quo’ of public bailout. Not one family was saved – but not one banker was left behind.
Every mortgage sharking operation shot up in value. Mozilo’s Countrywide stock rose 17% in one day. The Citi sheiks saw their company’s stock rise $10 billion in an afternoon.
And that very same day the bail-out was decided – what a coinkydink! – the man called, ‘The Sheriff of Wall Street’ was cuffed. Spitzer was silenced.
Spitzer, it turned out, had gone out of his way to make himself a target, writing these words about predatory loans for the Washington Post:
“Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.”
Bush, Spitzer said right in the headline, was the “Predator Lenders’ Partner in Crime.” The President, said Spitzer, was a fugitive from justice. And Spitzer was in Washington to launch a campaign to take on the Bush regime and the biggest financial powers on the planet.
Spitzer wrote, “When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners the Bush administration will not be judged favorably.”
No wonder the Bushies went after him. Spitzer's full piece for the Post can be read here. It ran on Feb. 14, the day after his final rendezvous with a prostitute in D.C.
Meanwhile, how ugly is this subprime business going to get? Walter Hamilton, of The Los Angeles Times, tell us it is heading toward an avalanche of lawsuits. And Hamilton compares it to the savings-and-loan scandals of the 1980s.
Those of us who lived through that mess will recall that Bushes were in the middle of that financial fiasco, too.
We Americans are slow learners aren't we?
On the one hand, Democrats are trying to take over the White House on the heels of what probably will prove to be the most corrupt administration in American history. That means Democrats need to tout their ability to govern with integrity.
By most any standard, Spitzer's repeated dalliances with high-priced call girls fails any integrity test. And for that reason, Democrats don't need to spend too much time trying to defend him.
On the other hand, the investigation that led to Spitzer's downfall raises serious questions about two of the biggest issues that will face our next president.
Issue No. 1? The politicization of the U.S. Justice Department, and Scott Horton, of Harper's, writes that Spitzer's case might be just the latest of many examples where the Bush DOJ prosecuted a person (almost always a Democrat) not a crime.
The Spitzer case, Horton notes, seems to be following the usual Bush DOJ script. Political prosecutions in BushWorld usually involve two dubious tactics--a focus on campaign fundraising and a focus on minor offenses--things that previously had not been seen as wrongdoing, much less criminal acts.
When the Spitzer story first broke, these elements did not seem to be in place. But then The New York Times reported that investigators were looking at Spitzer's possible use of campaign funds for meetings with prostitutes and possible use of car services.
Issue No. 2? The subprime mortgage mess, and investigative reporter Greg Palast says Bushies might have targeted Spitzer in retaliation for his efforts to clean up the banking and lending industries.
First, Palast provides some history of the subprime problem:
Here’s what happened. Since the Bush regime came to power, a new species of loan became the norm, the ‘sub-prime’ mortgage and its variants including loans with teeny “introductory” interest rates. From out of nowhere, a company called ‘Countrywide’ became America’s top mortgage lender, accounting for one in five home loans, a large chunk of these ‘sub-prime.’
Here’s how it worked: The Grinning Family, with US average household income, gets a $200,000 mortgage at 4% for two years. Their $955 monthly payment is 25% of their income. No problem. Their banker promises them a new mortgage, again at the cheap rate, in two years. But in two years, the promise ain’t worth a can of spam and the Grinnings are told to scram - because their house is now worth less than the mortgage. Now, the mortgage hits 9% or $1,609 plus fees to recover the “discount” they had for two years. Suddenly, payments equal 42% to 50% of pre-tax income. The Grinnings move into their Toyota.
Then we learn about the Bush approach to the growing fiasco:
Instead of regulating the banks that had run amok, Bush’s regulators went on the warpath against Spitzer and states attempting to stop predatory practices. Making an unprecedented use of the legal power of “federal pre-emption,” Bush-bots ordered the states to NOT enforce their consumer protection laws.
Indeed, the feds actually filed a lawsuit to block Spitzer’s investigation of ugly racial mortgage steering. Bush’s banking buddies were especially steamed that Spitzer hammered bank practices across the nation using New York State laws.
Spitzer not only took on Countrywide, he took on their predatory enablers in the investment banking community. Behind Countrywide was the Mother Shark, its funder and now owner, Bank of America. Others joined the sharkfest: Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and Citigroup’s Citibank made mortgage usury their major profit centers. They did this through a bit of financial legerdemain called “securitization.”
What that means is that they took a bunch of junk mortgages, like the Grinning’s, loans about to go down the toilet and re-packaged them into “tranches” of bonds which were stamped “AAA” - top grade - by bond rating agencies. These gold-painted turds were sold as sparkling safe investments to US school district pension funds and town governments in Finland (really).
When the housing bubble burst and the paint flaked off, investors were left with the poop and the bankers were left with bonuses. Countrywide’s top man, Angelo Mozilo, will ‘earn’ a $77 million buy-out bonus this year on top of the $656 million--over half a billion dollars--he pulled in from 1998 through 2007.
What happened when the you-know-what hit the fan?
Then, on Wednesday of this week, the unthinkable happened. Carlyle Capital went bankrupt. Who? That’s Carlyle as in Carlyle Group. James Baker, Senior Counsel. Notable partners, former and past: George Bush, the Bin Laden family and more dictators, potentates, pirates and presidents than you can count.
The Fed had to act. Bernanke opened the vault and dumped $200 billion on the poor little suffering bankers. They got the public treasure – and got to keep the Grinning’s house. There was no ‘quid’ of a foreclosure moratorium for the ‘pro quo’ of public bailout. Not one family was saved – but not one banker was left behind.
Every mortgage sharking operation shot up in value. Mozilo’s Countrywide stock rose 17% in one day. The Citi sheiks saw their company’s stock rise $10 billion in an afternoon.
And that very same day the bail-out was decided – what a coinkydink! – the man called, ‘The Sheriff of Wall Street’ was cuffed. Spitzer was silenced.
Spitzer, it turned out, had gone out of his way to make himself a target, writing these words about predatory loans for the Washington Post:
“Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.”
Bush, Spitzer said right in the headline, was the “Predator Lenders’ Partner in Crime.” The President, said Spitzer, was a fugitive from justice. And Spitzer was in Washington to launch a campaign to take on the Bush regime and the biggest financial powers on the planet.
Spitzer wrote, “When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners the Bush administration will not be judged favorably.”
No wonder the Bushies went after him. Spitzer's full piece for the Post can be read here. It ran on Feb. 14, the day after his final rendezvous with a prostitute in D.C.
Meanwhile, how ugly is this subprime business going to get? Walter Hamilton, of The Los Angeles Times, tell us it is heading toward an avalanche of lawsuits. And Hamilton compares it to the savings-and-loan scandals of the 1980s.
Those of us who lived through that mess will recall that Bushes were in the middle of that financial fiasco, too.
We Americans are slow learners aren't we?
Do Guilty Pleas Really Signify Guilt?
Let's return for a moment to the case of former Jefferson County Commissioner Gary White, a Republican who drew the wrath of fellow commissioner Bettye Fine Collins and U.S. Attorney Alice Martin and wound up being convicted on corruption-related charges.
When I used to read articles about someone pleading guilty to a crime, I assumed the person actually was guilty.
But after reading the affidavit of Judy White, wife of former Jefferson County Commissioner Gary White, I'm starting to read such stories a little differently.
The most recent guilty pleas I've read about have to do with the investigation of Alabama's two-year college system. A number of people--former Chancellor Roy Johnson, Southern Union State Community College president Joanne Jordan, a number of contractors who allegedly took kickbacks from Johnson--have pled guilty. But are they truly guilty, at least of any serious crimes?
Consider the case of Gary White. A Republican, White was convicted on corruption-related charges last year. His case was curious on a number of levels, mainly because it was an example of U.S. Attorney Alice Martin actually going after a Republican. Martin, a Bush appointee, has a rather lengthy history of targeting Democrats, particularly African-Americans.
But Gary White? Thanks to Scott Horton, of Harper's, we learned that even a Republican's prosecution can be politically tainted under Alice Martin. White evidently got on the bad side of the Bush Justice Department because he refused to give false testimony against former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. And White really stepped in it by voting for Democrat Larry Langford as president of the Jefferson County Commission, denying the post to Republican Bettye Fine Collins. This enraged Ms. Collins, who as Republican National Committeewoman, could help fulfill Ms. Martin's dream of becoming a federal judge. When Ms. Collins said "sic Gary White," Ms. Martin apparently was more than happy to oblige.
We learned all of this from Judy White's affidavit, which The Birmingham News went to great pains not to report.
Two segments of Ms. White's affidavit really jumped out at us here at Legal Schnauzer. First, is this:
The agents later attempted to coerce a guilty plea from my husband, threatening that if he did not do so, they would add so many charges against him, that he would be convicted just because of the sheer volume of the charges. Assistant U.S. Attorney Pat Meadows offered his personal promise that he would have the jury "hating Gary White" and they would convict him, regardless of the evidence.
Who in the heck wouldn't consider giving a guilty plea under such pressure? Is this how the Bush Justice Department regularly conducts business?
Then Ms. White offers this:
On the day my husband was arrested, he was terminated from his position by telephone. The company official who terminated him met with him subsequently and said that he had spoken with an FBI agent, and that based on his conversation, and his fear of having himself and his companies investigated, acted to satisfy the agent's suggestion to terminate my husband.
So, federal agents would go after someone's job? Isn't that interesting? Regular readers might remember a series of posts we called "A Schnauzer Spy Story." That series focused on someone close to me who lost a job under very curious circumstances after I fought back against judicial corruption in Alabama state courts. I've also noted that in the past couple of months I've had some strange things going on with my own job, and I strongly suspect this has something to do with the fact that I am blogging about the corruption I have witnessed.
I remember reading about the Gary White case and thinking, "Gosh, what a crook!" Well, it looks now like I was forming an opinion without having the whole story.
I wonder if we have the whole story on these folks who have pled guilty in the two-year college investigation.
When I used to read articles about someone pleading guilty to a crime, I assumed the person actually was guilty.
But after reading the affidavit of Judy White, wife of former Jefferson County Commissioner Gary White, I'm starting to read such stories a little differently.
The most recent guilty pleas I've read about have to do with the investigation of Alabama's two-year college system. A number of people--former Chancellor Roy Johnson, Southern Union State Community College president Joanne Jordan, a number of contractors who allegedly took kickbacks from Johnson--have pled guilty. But are they truly guilty, at least of any serious crimes?
Consider the case of Gary White. A Republican, White was convicted on corruption-related charges last year. His case was curious on a number of levels, mainly because it was an example of U.S. Attorney Alice Martin actually going after a Republican. Martin, a Bush appointee, has a rather lengthy history of targeting Democrats, particularly African-Americans.
But Gary White? Thanks to Scott Horton, of Harper's, we learned that even a Republican's prosecution can be politically tainted under Alice Martin. White evidently got on the bad side of the Bush Justice Department because he refused to give false testimony against former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. And White really stepped in it by voting for Democrat Larry Langford as president of the Jefferson County Commission, denying the post to Republican Bettye Fine Collins. This enraged Ms. Collins, who as Republican National Committeewoman, could help fulfill Ms. Martin's dream of becoming a federal judge. When Ms. Collins said "sic Gary White," Ms. Martin apparently was more than happy to oblige.
We learned all of this from Judy White's affidavit, which The Birmingham News went to great pains not to report.
Two segments of Ms. White's affidavit really jumped out at us here at Legal Schnauzer. First, is this:
The agents later attempted to coerce a guilty plea from my husband, threatening that if he did not do so, they would add so many charges against him, that he would be convicted just because of the sheer volume of the charges. Assistant U.S. Attorney Pat Meadows offered his personal promise that he would have the jury "hating Gary White" and they would convict him, regardless of the evidence.
Who in the heck wouldn't consider giving a guilty plea under such pressure? Is this how the Bush Justice Department regularly conducts business?
Then Ms. White offers this:
On the day my husband was arrested, he was terminated from his position by telephone. The company official who terminated him met with him subsequently and said that he had spoken with an FBI agent, and that based on his conversation, and his fear of having himself and his companies investigated, acted to satisfy the agent's suggestion to terminate my husband.
So, federal agents would go after someone's job? Isn't that interesting? Regular readers might remember a series of posts we called "A Schnauzer Spy Story." That series focused on someone close to me who lost a job under very curious circumstances after I fought back against judicial corruption in Alabama state courts. I've also noted that in the past couple of months I've had some strange things going on with my own job, and I strongly suspect this has something to do with the fact that I am blogging about the corruption I have witnessed.
I remember reading about the Gary White case and thinking, "Gosh, what a crook!" Well, it looks now like I was forming an opinion without having the whole story.
I wonder if we have the whole story on these folks who have pled guilty in the two-year college investigation.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
A Case of Real Bribery in Mississippi?
Bribery has been a central topic here at Legal Schnauzer, and now we actually have a prominent attorney confessing to the crime.
Richard "Dickie" Scruggs, who joined Paul Minor as perhaps the two most well known trial attorneys in Mississippi, has pleaded guilty to bribery charges. Scruggs, the brother-in-law of former U.S. Senator Trent Lott (R-MS), was charged with conspiring to bribe Circuit Judge Henry Lackey in a dispute over attorney's fees in a massive insurance settlement following Hurricane Katrina.
The folo blog is the place to turn for information and reaction about the Scruggs case. You can read folo's comprehensive coverage here.
Coverage from the Jackson-Clarion Ledger is available here.
Los Angeles Times reporters Richard Fausset, Jenny Jarvie, and Henry Weinstein have probably the definitive story on the Scruggs guilty plea. Their coverage is available here.
What exactly is bribery? Check out our "Bribery: A Primer" post here.
We noted in a previous post the connections--and the differences--between the Scruggs case and the Don Siegelman and Paul Minor cases. From reading news reports, it appears a true quid pro quo was at hand in the Scruggs case--a plan to pay a judge in return for a ruling favorable to Scruggs.
We have shown that no such agreement was present in the Minor case, and while we have no transcript for the Siegelman case, there is reason to question whether such a "something-for-something" agreement was present there.
In fact, we know that U.S. Judge Henry Wingate, contrary to clear federal law, did not even require a quid pro quo in his jury instructions for the Minor case. And U.S. Judge Mark Fuller, in his memorandum opinion to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, indicated that he probably did not make it clear in his jury instructions that a quid pro quo was required in the Siegelman case.
Press reports indicate that evidence in the Scruggs case included computer e-mails and recorded conversations. I've seen no reports that such evidence was presented in the Siegelman or Minor cases.
So why again are Don Siegelman and Minor defendants Paul Minor, Wes Teel, and John Whitfield in federal prison?
The Jackson Clarion-Ledger reports that Scruggs faces a maximum five-year prison sentence.
Richard "Dickie" Scruggs, who joined Paul Minor as perhaps the two most well known trial attorneys in Mississippi, has pleaded guilty to bribery charges. Scruggs, the brother-in-law of former U.S. Senator Trent Lott (R-MS), was charged with conspiring to bribe Circuit Judge Henry Lackey in a dispute over attorney's fees in a massive insurance settlement following Hurricane Katrina.
The folo blog is the place to turn for information and reaction about the Scruggs case. You can read folo's comprehensive coverage here.
Coverage from the Jackson-Clarion Ledger is available here.
Los Angeles Times reporters Richard Fausset, Jenny Jarvie, and Henry Weinstein have probably the definitive story on the Scruggs guilty plea. Their coverage is available here.
What exactly is bribery? Check out our "Bribery: A Primer" post here.
We noted in a previous post the connections--and the differences--between the Scruggs case and the Don Siegelman and Paul Minor cases. From reading news reports, it appears a true quid pro quo was at hand in the Scruggs case--a plan to pay a judge in return for a ruling favorable to Scruggs.
We have shown that no such agreement was present in the Minor case, and while we have no transcript for the Siegelman case, there is reason to question whether such a "something-for-something" agreement was present there.
In fact, we know that U.S. Judge Henry Wingate, contrary to clear federal law, did not even require a quid pro quo in his jury instructions for the Minor case. And U.S. Judge Mark Fuller, in his memorandum opinion to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, indicated that he probably did not make it clear in his jury instructions that a quid pro quo was required in the Siegelman case.
Press reports indicate that evidence in the Scruggs case included computer e-mails and recorded conversations. I've seen no reports that such evidence was presented in the Siegelman or Minor cases.
So why again are Don Siegelman and Minor defendants Paul Minor, Wes Teel, and John Whitfield in federal prison?
The Jackson Clarion-Ledger reports that Scruggs faces a maximum five-year prison sentence.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Are Big Law Firms Feeling the Pain?
Our pal Robby Scott Hill is always coming up with interesting stuff at his Novationeering blog. His recent post about the noted Birmingham law firm Bradley Arant caught my eye.
Hill notes that Bradley Arant failed in its efforts to get Luther Strange elected lieutenant governor or Drayton Nabers as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. The firm, Hill writes, has continued to hemorrhage cash as it supports the unpopular policies the Business Council of Alabama.
The fallout? A large law firm in Nashville wanted to merge with Bradley Arant but backed out when its due-diligence investigation revealed the shaky state of financial affairs at the Birmingham firm.
"The once financially solid firm has now become highly leveraged in order to support the lifestyles and failed political ambitions of its partners," Hill writes. Ouch!
Actually, we love this kind of stuff at Legal Schnauzer. You see, when my criminally inclined neighbor filed a bogus lawsuit against me, I made the mistake of turning to a "top-tier," downtown Birmingham firm--the esteemed Lange Simpson.
Jesse P. Evans III, a partner at Lange Simpson, took my case and assigned most of the work to an associate, Michael B. Odom. Between them, Evans and Odom accomplished two things--billing me with frightening regularity (to the tune of about $12,000) and kowtowing to the desires of corrupt Shelby County Judge J. Michael Joiner. In the process, Evans and Odom blew copious amounts of smoke up my fanny in an effort to make me think they had my best interests at heart--when in fact they were serving as Joiner's lap dogs.
How did I know this? For one, they refused to file a counterclaim on my behalf--even though my neighbor had trespassed against my wife and me in about as blatant a way as possible. Under the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, the direction of a case is determined by the client--in this case, me. If a client directs an attorney to take a lawful course of action, the attorney is obligated under the law to do as he is told. Evans and Odom flat out refused to follow my lawful directions.
I offered to deal with Evans and Odom in a fair way. I told them it had become clear that they could not represent me thoroughly and aggressively, so I asked them to return my money and I would be on my way--seeking a lawyer who could represent me as he or she was required to under the law. Evans and Odom and the kind folks at Lange Simpson refused this request, so I sued them for legal malpractice.
My allegations against Lange Simpson are not exactly breaking news. They are a matter of public record, and anyone can go to the Jefferson County Courthouse and read my complaint against the firm.
I will be dealing with the actions and inactions of Evans and Odom in great detail later on. I also will show how a Jefferson County judge--Shelby County is not the only place in Alabama with corrupt judges--violated well-established law in order to protect his cronies at a big Birmingham firm.
But for now, excuse me while I chuckle as Hill recounts the troubles at Bradley Arant. (By the way, I should mention that Lange Simpson, unlike Bradley Arant, did manage to merge with an out-of-state firm. The place is now called Adams & Reese/Lange Simpson. And Evans and Odom bolted for another high-end firm, Haskell Slaughter. I don't know much about Haskell Slaughter, but I would suggest they should be more careful about the company they keep.)
Back to Bradley Arant. Hill seems to take special delight in tossing this dagger at the stuffed shirts:
Just when the firm thought things couldn’t get any worse, Bradley partner and former President of the Alabama State Bar, Gary C. Huckaby was sentenced to Federal Prison for committing lewd and indecent acts on Public Land in the Joe Wheeler Wildlife Refuge. He had represented Time Magazine and the University of Alabama in their civil suit against former Crimson Tide Coach Mike Price who had been railroaded by wealthy but dissident alumni and football boosters who did not like him.
Hill notes that Bradley Arant failed in its efforts to get Luther Strange elected lieutenant governor or Drayton Nabers as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. The firm, Hill writes, has continued to hemorrhage cash as it supports the unpopular policies the Business Council of Alabama.
The fallout? A large law firm in Nashville wanted to merge with Bradley Arant but backed out when its due-diligence investigation revealed the shaky state of financial affairs at the Birmingham firm.
"The once financially solid firm has now become highly leveraged in order to support the lifestyles and failed political ambitions of its partners," Hill writes. Ouch!
Actually, we love this kind of stuff at Legal Schnauzer. You see, when my criminally inclined neighbor filed a bogus lawsuit against me, I made the mistake of turning to a "top-tier," downtown Birmingham firm--the esteemed Lange Simpson.
Jesse P. Evans III, a partner at Lange Simpson, took my case and assigned most of the work to an associate, Michael B. Odom. Between them, Evans and Odom accomplished two things--billing me with frightening regularity (to the tune of about $12,000) and kowtowing to the desires of corrupt Shelby County Judge J. Michael Joiner. In the process, Evans and Odom blew copious amounts of smoke up my fanny in an effort to make me think they had my best interests at heart--when in fact they were serving as Joiner's lap dogs.
How did I know this? For one, they refused to file a counterclaim on my behalf--even though my neighbor had trespassed against my wife and me in about as blatant a way as possible. Under the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, the direction of a case is determined by the client--in this case, me. If a client directs an attorney to take a lawful course of action, the attorney is obligated under the law to do as he is told. Evans and Odom flat out refused to follow my lawful directions.
I offered to deal with Evans and Odom in a fair way. I told them it had become clear that they could not represent me thoroughly and aggressively, so I asked them to return my money and I would be on my way--seeking a lawyer who could represent me as he or she was required to under the law. Evans and Odom and the kind folks at Lange Simpson refused this request, so I sued them for legal malpractice.
My allegations against Lange Simpson are not exactly breaking news. They are a matter of public record, and anyone can go to the Jefferson County Courthouse and read my complaint against the firm.
I will be dealing with the actions and inactions of Evans and Odom in great detail later on. I also will show how a Jefferson County judge--Shelby County is not the only place in Alabama with corrupt judges--violated well-established law in order to protect his cronies at a big Birmingham firm.
But for now, excuse me while I chuckle as Hill recounts the troubles at Bradley Arant. (By the way, I should mention that Lange Simpson, unlike Bradley Arant, did manage to merge with an out-of-state firm. The place is now called Adams & Reese/Lange Simpson. And Evans and Odom bolted for another high-end firm, Haskell Slaughter. I don't know much about Haskell Slaughter, but I would suggest they should be more careful about the company they keep.)
Back to Bradley Arant. Hill seems to take special delight in tossing this dagger at the stuffed shirts:
Just when the firm thought things couldn’t get any worse, Bradley partner and former President of the Alabama State Bar, Gary C. Huckaby was sentenced to Federal Prison for committing lewd and indecent acts on Public Land in the Joe Wheeler Wildlife Refuge. He had represented Time Magazine and the University of Alabama in their civil suit against former Crimson Tide Coach Mike Price who had been railroaded by wealthy but dissident alumni and football boosters who did not like him.
It wouldn't be such a bad thing, Hill seems to be saying, if a few big-money law firms went down the tubes. Based on what I've seen from Lange Simpson, I couldn't agree more. More from Hill:
As old money law firms like Bradley, Arant continue to be mismanaged and continue to travel on a course heading for failure, the market is now wide open for socially responsible firms to seize their market share. The impending failure of Bradley, Arant, Rose and White, LLP is welcome news to the Workers of Alabama.
Did Rob Riley Cash In On Siegelman Prosecution?
How much did the Riley family benefit from the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman? Let us count the ways.
We know that current Governor Bob Riley saw his path to re-election in 2006 become much more clear with Siegelman out of the way.
Now, thanks to the reporting of Sam Stein at The Huffington Post, we know the Riley family benefited in other ways. Birmingham lawyer Rob Riley, son of the Republican governor, made a nice chunk of change from a civil matter that ran parallel to the Siegelman criminal case.
On January 13, 2005, Rob Riley suddenly was added as local counsel on a massive lawsuit against HealthSouth and its former CEO, Richard Scrushy. Riley represented the New Mexico State Investment Council, a relatively new player at the time in the HealthSouth litigation.
At the same time the civil case was unfolding, Scrushy was co-defendant in the Siegelman criminal case. And that, Stein reports, is how Rob Riley stood to gain financially.
Riley's involvement in the class-action HealthSouth lawsuit is curious. His legal work has focused on medical malpractice, Stein reports, and he had little experience in complex securities litigation.
But Riley had something that proved to be more important--ties to U.S. Judge Mark Fuller, who was overseeing the Siegelman/Scrushy criminal case. Writes Stein:
"[Riley] very aggressively thrust himself into that suit as a late comer," said Scott Horton, a law professor at Columbia University who has written extensively on these issues for Harper's magazine. "He knew that Fuller had made statements suggesting that he felt he had once been a target of a politically motivated attack by Siegelman. He knew that this would make someone predisposed against Siegelman the perfect hanging judge. And he would reap the benefit of the class action suit on the side."
The Siegelman/Scrushy criminal case and the HealthSouth lawsuit intersected in May 2006. An investment banker testified in the criminal case that he had been pressured by HealthSouth to come up with $250,000 for Siegelman's education lottery fund.
Stein quotes two sources who say this revelation contributed to HealthSouth's decision to pay $445 million in the civil case, one of the largest settlements in securities-litigation history.
How much did Rob Riley benefit from this settlement? Writes Stein:
Riley declined to reveal what he made from the case, saying that the amount was "evolving." But he did acknowledge that it was substantial. "It was a very good settlement," he said. "But at the same time there was a lot of work that went into it."
Critics see it differently: Riley knew Scrushy was going down in the criminal trial and saw a way to reap the benefits in the separate civil case.
"Rob Riley approved of the strategy of dragging Scrushy into the [criminal] case because it would have benefits for him in the class action suit," said Horton. "It was clear that he was intently following what was going on in Fuller's court and knew that the conviction of Scrushy in that case would have strong benefits in the class action suit."
We know that current Governor Bob Riley saw his path to re-election in 2006 become much more clear with Siegelman out of the way.
Now, thanks to the reporting of Sam Stein at The Huffington Post, we know the Riley family benefited in other ways. Birmingham lawyer Rob Riley, son of the Republican governor, made a nice chunk of change from a civil matter that ran parallel to the Siegelman criminal case.
On January 13, 2005, Rob Riley suddenly was added as local counsel on a massive lawsuit against HealthSouth and its former CEO, Richard Scrushy. Riley represented the New Mexico State Investment Council, a relatively new player at the time in the HealthSouth litigation.
At the same time the civil case was unfolding, Scrushy was co-defendant in the Siegelman criminal case. And that, Stein reports, is how Rob Riley stood to gain financially.
Riley's involvement in the class-action HealthSouth lawsuit is curious. His legal work has focused on medical malpractice, Stein reports, and he had little experience in complex securities litigation.
But Riley had something that proved to be more important--ties to U.S. Judge Mark Fuller, who was overseeing the Siegelman/Scrushy criminal case. Writes Stein:
"[Riley] very aggressively thrust himself into that suit as a late comer," said Scott Horton, a law professor at Columbia University who has written extensively on these issues for Harper's magazine. "He knew that Fuller had made statements suggesting that he felt he had once been a target of a politically motivated attack by Siegelman. He knew that this would make someone predisposed against Siegelman the perfect hanging judge. And he would reap the benefit of the class action suit on the side."
The Siegelman/Scrushy criminal case and the HealthSouth lawsuit intersected in May 2006. An investment banker testified in the criminal case that he had been pressured by HealthSouth to come up with $250,000 for Siegelman's education lottery fund.
Stein quotes two sources who say this revelation contributed to HealthSouth's decision to pay $445 million in the civil case, one of the largest settlements in securities-litigation history.
How much did Rob Riley benefit from this settlement? Writes Stein:
Riley declined to reveal what he made from the case, saying that the amount was "evolving." But he did acknowledge that it was substantial. "It was a very good settlement," he said. "But at the same time there was a lot of work that went into it."
Critics see it differently: Riley knew Scrushy was going down in the criminal trial and saw a way to reap the benefits in the separate civil case.
"Rob Riley approved of the strategy of dragging Scrushy into the [criminal] case because it would have benefits for him in the class action suit," said Horton. "It was clear that he was intently following what was going on in Fuller's court and knew that the conviction of Scrushy in that case would have strong benefits in the class action suit."
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Bad Judges and Cockroaches, Part IV
Since we last visited this story, a helpful and knowledgeable reader has pointed me in a most interesting direction. And I've learned that both Jefferson County Circuit Judge Allwin Horn and I appear to be wrong about some issues connected to my pending legal malpractice case against Birmingham attorney Richard Poff.
There's a difference, though, between Judge Horn and me: I'm not paid to know the law; he is. And evidence suggests that he's not making the slightest effort to get it right in my case.
In our previous episodes, I noted that my legal-malpractice case was complicated by the fact that Poff had filed for bankruptcy. Judge Horn has ruled that my lawsuit represents a "claim," and I must receive permission from the bankruptcy court in order to proceed in state court. I have contended that my lawsuit does not constitute a claim under bankruptcy law, and thus does not require permission from the bankruptcy court.
Turns out we both had it wrong--I think.
In our defense, bankruptcy is a complex, highly specialized area of the law. I've never had reason, up till now, to learn anything about it. And Horn, even though he is a state judge and has a law degree, probably doesn't deal much with bankruptcy issues--and probably doesn't know much about them.
Horn, though, does have an obligation under the law to find out about bankruptcy law when it has an effect on a case in his court. And he doesn't seem willing to make the effort to learn what the law actually is.
As I noted in a previous post, I asked Horn for an explanation of his ruling that I was required to seek permission from the bankruptcy court. (He gave no explanation in his written ruling.) His reply? It was "his impression" that the law required me to do this?
What was I dying to say? "If I wanted an impression, I'd call up Rich Little." (Reminds me of a great line from the classic John Hughes movie Planes, Trains, and Automobiles. An agitated Steve Martin has an encounter with a taxi driver, who evidently fancies himself a comedian. But the driver's one liner falls flat with Martin. "If I wanted a joke," Martin says, "I'd follow you into the john and watch you take a leak." More great lines from the movie can be found here.)
I suspected Horn's "impression" was wrong, and it appears I was right about that. I suspected he was wrong because my lawsuit did not constitute a "claim" under bankruptcy law--and it appears I was wrong about that.
How did I get squared away in the labyrinthine world of bankruptcy law? Why, a Legal Schnauzer reader helped me. And for that, I am most grateful.
I suspect this reader either has a law degree or is connected to the legal profession in some way. Not just anybody knows how to call up a case involving bankruptcy law and state courts.
So maybe I need to take back some of the ugly things I've said about lawyers on this blog. Actually, that reminds me of a curious lesson that's been driven home since I started this blogging endeavor in June 2007. While many of the villains in my tale have law degrees, so do many of the heroes--Scott Horton, Jill Simpson, Paul Benton Weeks.
Now I suspect we should add an anonymous reader to that list of honorable lawyers. What did this reader teach me about our "Bad Judges and Cockroaches" case?
That's coming up.
There's a difference, though, between Judge Horn and me: I'm not paid to know the law; he is. And evidence suggests that he's not making the slightest effort to get it right in my case.
In our previous episodes, I noted that my legal-malpractice case was complicated by the fact that Poff had filed for bankruptcy. Judge Horn has ruled that my lawsuit represents a "claim," and I must receive permission from the bankruptcy court in order to proceed in state court. I have contended that my lawsuit does not constitute a claim under bankruptcy law, and thus does not require permission from the bankruptcy court.
Turns out we both had it wrong--I think.
In our defense, bankruptcy is a complex, highly specialized area of the law. I've never had reason, up till now, to learn anything about it. And Horn, even though he is a state judge and has a law degree, probably doesn't deal much with bankruptcy issues--and probably doesn't know much about them.
Horn, though, does have an obligation under the law to find out about bankruptcy law when it has an effect on a case in his court. And he doesn't seem willing to make the effort to learn what the law actually is.
As I noted in a previous post, I asked Horn for an explanation of his ruling that I was required to seek permission from the bankruptcy court. (He gave no explanation in his written ruling.) His reply? It was "his impression" that the law required me to do this?
What was I dying to say? "If I wanted an impression, I'd call up Rich Little." (Reminds me of a great line from the classic John Hughes movie Planes, Trains, and Automobiles. An agitated Steve Martin has an encounter with a taxi driver, who evidently fancies himself a comedian. But the driver's one liner falls flat with Martin. "If I wanted a joke," Martin says, "I'd follow you into the john and watch you take a leak." More great lines from the movie can be found here.)
I suspected Horn's "impression" was wrong, and it appears I was right about that. I suspected he was wrong because my lawsuit did not constitute a "claim" under bankruptcy law--and it appears I was wrong about that.
How did I get squared away in the labyrinthine world of bankruptcy law? Why, a Legal Schnauzer reader helped me. And for that, I am most grateful.
I suspect this reader either has a law degree or is connected to the legal profession in some way. Not just anybody knows how to call up a case involving bankruptcy law and state courts.
So maybe I need to take back some of the ugly things I've said about lawyers on this blog. Actually, that reminds me of a curious lesson that's been driven home since I started this blogging endeavor in June 2007. While many of the villains in my tale have law degrees, so do many of the heroes--Scott Horton, Jill Simpson, Paul Benton Weeks.
Now I suspect we should add an anonymous reader to that list of honorable lawyers. What did this reader teach me about our "Bad Judges and Cockroaches" case?
That's coming up.
The Adventures of Alice in Plunderland
Got an interesting e-mail today from (as Dave Barry would say) an alert reader. He (my reader, not Dave Barry) let me know about a recent blog post regarding U.S. Attorney Alice Martin and referred to it as the antics of "Alice in Plunderland."
I liked that line so much that I asked him if I could steal it sometime. He said "sure," so there you have it.
And what about the post? Well it was from our friends at folo, a blog that follows heavy-duty legal issues, particularly in Mississippi. We posted recently about folo here.
Our reader was intrigued by this post, titled "Alice Martin tried to stick her nose in the Renfroe case. Why?"
The Renfroe case involved insurance coverage in Mississippi following Hurricane Katrina. Renfroe & Co. was an insurance adjusting firm that was working for State Farm. For some reason, Alice Martin (U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama) sought to intervene by seeking an ex parte status conference.
What does this mean? Let's let the folks at folo explain:
Before I go into this, I want to remind readers what ex parte hearings are, quite literally: They are court proceedings involving only one party to a case. I’ll also remind them that the Renfroe case was between Renfroe & Co., an insurance adjusting firm working for State Farm, and the Rigsby sisters, two former adjusting employees for Renfroe. In January of 2007, they were subject to an injunction that they return to Renfroe & Co. documents they had taken. It also bears remembering that the United States (that is, the justice department and the U.S. attorney) was not in any way party to that suit.
What to make of this? Beats me, and the folks at folo are baffled, too:
I don’t know anything to do but speculate about this event. It involves a bête noir of Lotus’s, N.D. Alabama U.S. Attorney Alice Martin. In the period January 11-19, 2007 (a period that has a lot of interest to me, as readers are aware), she actively attempted to insert herself in the Renfroe case. My question is essentially: What was she up to? Who exactly pulled her string? I can think of explanations that are legitimate (say there really was a justice department investigation involving State Farm and the Rigsbys and they were trying to protect the Rigsbys) and illegitimate (for some reason suddenly deciding to help out Dickie Scruggs and his informants, at the behest of, oh, anyone could guess), but I don’t really have a clue. If there really was an investigation, I don’t think this would have been the way to protect it.
Legal Schnauzer readers might want to check out some of the comments at the folo post. Interesting stuff.
You never know what's going to happen with Alice in Plunderland.
I liked that line so much that I asked him if I could steal it sometime. He said "sure," so there you have it.
And what about the post? Well it was from our friends at folo, a blog that follows heavy-duty legal issues, particularly in Mississippi. We posted recently about folo here.
Our reader was intrigued by this post, titled "Alice Martin tried to stick her nose in the Renfroe case. Why?"
The Renfroe case involved insurance coverage in Mississippi following Hurricane Katrina. Renfroe & Co. was an insurance adjusting firm that was working for State Farm. For some reason, Alice Martin (U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama) sought to intervene by seeking an ex parte status conference.
What does this mean? Let's let the folks at folo explain:
Before I go into this, I want to remind readers what ex parte hearings are, quite literally: They are court proceedings involving only one party to a case. I’ll also remind them that the Renfroe case was between Renfroe & Co., an insurance adjusting firm working for State Farm, and the Rigsby sisters, two former adjusting employees for Renfroe. In January of 2007, they were subject to an injunction that they return to Renfroe & Co. documents they had taken. It also bears remembering that the United States (that is, the justice department and the U.S. attorney) was not in any way party to that suit.
What to make of this? Beats me, and the folks at folo are baffled, too:
I don’t know anything to do but speculate about this event. It involves a bête noir of Lotus’s, N.D. Alabama U.S. Attorney Alice Martin. In the period January 11-19, 2007 (a period that has a lot of interest to me, as readers are aware), she actively attempted to insert herself in the Renfroe case. My question is essentially: What was she up to? Who exactly pulled her string? I can think of explanations that are legitimate (say there really was a justice department investigation involving State Farm and the Rigsbys and they were trying to protect the Rigsbys) and illegitimate (for some reason suddenly deciding to help out Dickie Scruggs and his informants, at the behest of, oh, anyone could guess), but I don’t really have a clue. If there really was an investigation, I don’t think this would have been the way to protect it.
Legal Schnauzer readers might want to check out some of the comments at the folo post. Interesting stuff.
You never know what's going to happen with Alice in Plunderland.
What Lies Ahead
Just wanted to take a moment to outline what we have coming up on Legal Schnauzer.
Of course, we will continue to follow the Don Siegelman case and other stories connected to the politicization of the U.S. Justice Department. And we will follow justice-related stories connected to Alabama and the Deep South, focusing particularly on Alabama state courts.
But we are developing three primary storylines connected to my personal experience with injustice:
1. Recent threats by authorities in Shelby County, Alabama, to unlawfully seize the house that belongs to my wife and me. We call this our "Jack-Booted Thugs" story.
2. My efforts to inform Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, about federal crimes that I have witnessed. These crimes--honest services mail fraud, conspiracy--have been committed by multiple state judges and at least one attorney, all with ties to the Alabama Republican Party. We will show how Ms. Martin intentionally covers up allegations of wrongdoing by members of the GOP "home team," sending them to the improper investigative agency so they can die without even being examined. We will call this our "Malice of Alice" story.
3. A pending legal malpractice case against my second attorney, a gentleman named Richard Poff, and the curious rulings by Jefferson County Judge Allwin Horn, who is (surprise, surprise) a Republican. We will call this our "Bad Judges and Cockroaches" story.
A few points to keep in mind as we move forward with these storylines:
* Evidence strongly suggests that the threat to seize our house goes well beyond Shelby County, Alabama. I will present information that indicates this example of "state-sponsored terrorism" is not just a local matter.
* A number of the characters who are central to the Siegelman case also have connections to my case. And the primary criminal charge in the Siegelman case, honest-services mail fraud, is central to my experience.
* My experience is a classic example of selective prosecution by the Bush Justice Department, a subject that has drawn the attention of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee. While attention so far has focused primarily on individuals (such as Siegelman) who apparently have been prosecuted for political reasons, my case presents the flip side of that equation--where individuals are not prosecuted for crimes they clearly have committed, for political reasons.
* The legal establishment closes ranks to protect its own--even those it finds unsavory. Richard Poff, my second attorney, was involved in a whistleblower case in the 1990s that made him a pariah in the Birmingham legal community. The case received national attention, and the whole reason I contacted Poff was that, based on what I had read about the whistleblower case, I thought he was a man of integrity and courage. As you can probably guess from the fact that I've filed a legal-malpractice case against Poff, I was not pleased with my experience. But here is something interesting: You can mention the words "Richard Poff" to a Birmingham lawyer, and you are almost always going to receive one of three reactions--rolled eyeballs, clenched fists, foul language (or all of the above). But we will show that even a lawyer as unpopular as Poff draws protection from the judges who sit atop the legal pecking order.
Is there a unifying theme to all of this? I would suggest--to borrow a phrase from a popular blog--it's about Crooks and Liars.
Crooks and liars, of course, have always been a part of American life. But this seems to be a particularly fertile time for scoundrels to take root. This blog focuses primarily on scoundrels of the right, but you don't have to look too hard to find evidence that wrongdoers cross political boundaries. (See Spitzer, E.)
The three storylines that are coming up will give you details about my personal experience with crooks and liars. And I hope these stories hit home because, chances are, I'm not a whole lot different from you. I'm just a regular guy--Caucasian, 50ish, one wife, no children, two cats, one mortgage, aging parents, three siblings, gobs of nieces and nephews, the usual stuff.
While you might feel a bit removed from stories about the political prosecutions of public officials, I hope my story will draw you in and show you that crooks and liars are like those warnings you see on rearview mirrors: They can be closer than they appear.
First, let's turn to the latest in our "Bad Judges and Cockroaches" story.
Of course, we will continue to follow the Don Siegelman case and other stories connected to the politicization of the U.S. Justice Department. And we will follow justice-related stories connected to Alabama and the Deep South, focusing particularly on Alabama state courts.
But we are developing three primary storylines connected to my personal experience with injustice:
1. Recent threats by authorities in Shelby County, Alabama, to unlawfully seize the house that belongs to my wife and me. We call this our "Jack-Booted Thugs" story.
2. My efforts to inform Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, about federal crimes that I have witnessed. These crimes--honest services mail fraud, conspiracy--have been committed by multiple state judges and at least one attorney, all with ties to the Alabama Republican Party. We will show how Ms. Martin intentionally covers up allegations of wrongdoing by members of the GOP "home team," sending them to the improper investigative agency so they can die without even being examined. We will call this our "Malice of Alice" story.
3. A pending legal malpractice case against my second attorney, a gentleman named Richard Poff, and the curious rulings by Jefferson County Judge Allwin Horn, who is (surprise, surprise) a Republican. We will call this our "Bad Judges and Cockroaches" story.
A few points to keep in mind as we move forward with these storylines:
* Evidence strongly suggests that the threat to seize our house goes well beyond Shelby County, Alabama. I will present information that indicates this example of "state-sponsored terrorism" is not just a local matter.
* A number of the characters who are central to the Siegelman case also have connections to my case. And the primary criminal charge in the Siegelman case, honest-services mail fraud, is central to my experience.
* My experience is a classic example of selective prosecution by the Bush Justice Department, a subject that has drawn the attention of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee. While attention so far has focused primarily on individuals (such as Siegelman) who apparently have been prosecuted for political reasons, my case presents the flip side of that equation--where individuals are not prosecuted for crimes they clearly have committed, for political reasons.
* The legal establishment closes ranks to protect its own--even those it finds unsavory. Richard Poff, my second attorney, was involved in a whistleblower case in the 1990s that made him a pariah in the Birmingham legal community. The case received national attention, and the whole reason I contacted Poff was that, based on what I had read about the whistleblower case, I thought he was a man of integrity and courage. As you can probably guess from the fact that I've filed a legal-malpractice case against Poff, I was not pleased with my experience. But here is something interesting: You can mention the words "Richard Poff" to a Birmingham lawyer, and you are almost always going to receive one of three reactions--rolled eyeballs, clenched fists, foul language (or all of the above). But we will show that even a lawyer as unpopular as Poff draws protection from the judges who sit atop the legal pecking order.
Is there a unifying theme to all of this? I would suggest--to borrow a phrase from a popular blog--it's about Crooks and Liars.
Crooks and liars, of course, have always been a part of American life. But this seems to be a particularly fertile time for scoundrels to take root. This blog focuses primarily on scoundrels of the right, but you don't have to look too hard to find evidence that wrongdoers cross political boundaries. (See Spitzer, E.)
The three storylines that are coming up will give you details about my personal experience with crooks and liars. And I hope these stories hit home because, chances are, I'm not a whole lot different from you. I'm just a regular guy--Caucasian, 50ish, one wife, no children, two cats, one mortgage, aging parents, three siblings, gobs of nieces and nephews, the usual stuff.
While you might feel a bit removed from stories about the political prosecutions of public officials, I hope my story will draw you in and show you that crooks and liars are like those warnings you see on rearview mirrors: They can be closer than they appear.
First, let's turn to the latest in our "Bad Judges and Cockroaches" story.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Why is Don Siegelman Still in Prison?
Amidst all of the buzz generated by the 60 Minutes story on the Don Siegelman prosecution, it has been easy to lose sight of an awfully important matter in the case.
In fact, I must admit I had forgotten about it until a light bulb went on over my head earlier today.
What did the light bulb cause me to ask myself? Why in the heck is Don Siegelman still in federal prison pending his appeal?
This question floated to the surface because I was reminded of U.S. Judge Mark Fuller and the memorandum opinion he issued on January 2, 2008. The opinion was designed to show why Siegelman should remain in prison pending appeal. But as we noted here at Legal Schnauzer, Fuller actually did a splendid job of making the case that Siegelman should not--in fact, must not--remain in prison pending appeal. We showed that Fuller inadvertently made Siegelman's case for him, undoubtedly the first favor the federal judge ever has done for the former governor.
With all of the hub-bub generated by the 60 Minutes story, I realized that I had forgotten just how pathetic Fuller's memorandum opinion actually was. And I figured that others perhaps had forgotten it, too.
How bad was Fuller's handiwork? Scott Horton, of Harper's, said his colleagues in the legal profession called it "farcical" and the work of a "third rate legal mind."
I don't disagree with Horton on much, but I would take issue with this last statement. It's an insult to those of us with third-rate legal minds. I would say Fuller's memo revealed, oh, an 87th-rated legal mind.
Why does Fuller's memo matter? The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals had asked Fuller, twice, to justify his decision to deny Siegelman bond pending appeal. After putting it off as long as he could, Fuller finally issued his opinion on January 2.
As we showed here, Fuller did not come close to meeting his burden for showing that Siegelman should be denied bail.
More than two months have passed since Fuller proved, in his own words, that Siegelman's imprisonment pending appeal is not legally justified. And yet, nothing has changed.
And so we ask: Why is Don Siegelman still in prison?
In fact, I must admit I had forgotten about it until a light bulb went on over my head earlier today.
What did the light bulb cause me to ask myself? Why in the heck is Don Siegelman still in federal prison pending his appeal?
This question floated to the surface because I was reminded of U.S. Judge Mark Fuller and the memorandum opinion he issued on January 2, 2008. The opinion was designed to show why Siegelman should remain in prison pending appeal. But as we noted here at Legal Schnauzer, Fuller actually did a splendid job of making the case that Siegelman should not--in fact, must not--remain in prison pending appeal. We showed that Fuller inadvertently made Siegelman's case for him, undoubtedly the first favor the federal judge ever has done for the former governor.
With all of the hub-bub generated by the 60 Minutes story, I realized that I had forgotten just how pathetic Fuller's memorandum opinion actually was. And I figured that others perhaps had forgotten it, too.
How bad was Fuller's handiwork? Scott Horton, of Harper's, said his colleagues in the legal profession called it "farcical" and the work of a "third rate legal mind."
I don't disagree with Horton on much, but I would take issue with this last statement. It's an insult to those of us with third-rate legal minds. I would say Fuller's memo revealed, oh, an 87th-rated legal mind.
Why does Fuller's memo matter? The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals had asked Fuller, twice, to justify his decision to deny Siegelman bond pending appeal. After putting it off as long as he could, Fuller finally issued his opinion on January 2.
As we showed here, Fuller did not come close to meeting his burden for showing that Siegelman should be denied bail.
More than two months have passed since Fuller proved, in his own words, that Siegelman's imprisonment pending appeal is not legally justified. And yet, nothing has changed.
And so we ask: Why is Don Siegelman still in prison?
Spitzer, Sex, and Politics
Did politics play a role in the sex sting that nabbed New York Governor, and rising Democratic star, Eliot Spitzer?
Spitzer, who built his reputation as a straight-arrow prosecutor (focusing on Wall Street crimes and, yes, even prostitution cases), now looks like a colossal hypocrite. His political career also might be in tatters.
But numerous respected voices in the blogosphere are asking: Was Spitzer a target for a zealous and partisan Bush Justice Department? Some highlights:
* Scott Horton, of Harper's notes, that early reports had the investigation focusing on a prostitution ring, and Spitzer just happened to get caught in the net. But an ABC News account has the investigation looking at Spitzer from the outset. And that raises the question: Why was Spitzer a target?
Horton notes the curious role of the Public Integrity Section at the Department of Justice and the case's ties to an election cycle. This pattern, Horton writes, fits with what we have seen in Alabama.
In an even more curious note, Horton says the investigation was opened under the White-Slave Traffic Act of 1910. This is the disreputable statute that was used against such notables as boxing champion Jack Johnson and actor Charles Chaplin.
* Larisa Alexandrovna of at-Largely asks some intriguing questions. The case against Spitzer evidently started when a bank noticed suspicious money transfers and notified the IRS. The concern was some type of public corruption, perhaps bribery. But the funds were going out of Spitzer's account, not into it. How would that signal bribery? And what about U.S. Senator David Vitter (R-LA), who was connected to prostitution in Washington, D.C., and New Orleans? Is the Justice Department pursuing a criminal investigation against him?
* Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake provides analysis of the legal issues involved. She notes that the DOJ evidently is trying to go after Spitzer for a relatively obscure crime called "structuring." When it looked like that wouldn't stick, the feds evidently went for money laundering. The whole thing, Hamsher writes, has overtones of the Don Siegelman case in Alabama--go after a Democrat and get him for something, anything.
* Nicolle Belle at Crooks and Liars raises questions about the bank and the Justice Department. Why did the bank tell the IRS and not Spitzer himself about the suspicious money transfers? He's a longtime client and the governor of the state. Wouldn't it make sense to contact him directly? And why is a U.S. attorney involved in a prostitution case? Isn't this usually a state or local matter?
* Closer to home, Mooncat at Left in Alabama has an excellent analysis, noting that Spitzer, Siegelman and other Democrats who get in trouble usually don't have an army of loyalists who immediately come to their aid. That seems to be a Republican specialty.
Spitzer, who built his reputation as a straight-arrow prosecutor (focusing on Wall Street crimes and, yes, even prostitution cases), now looks like a colossal hypocrite. His political career also might be in tatters.
But numerous respected voices in the blogosphere are asking: Was Spitzer a target for a zealous and partisan Bush Justice Department? Some highlights:
* Scott Horton, of Harper's notes, that early reports had the investigation focusing on a prostitution ring, and Spitzer just happened to get caught in the net. But an ABC News account has the investigation looking at Spitzer from the outset. And that raises the question: Why was Spitzer a target?
Horton notes the curious role of the Public Integrity Section at the Department of Justice and the case's ties to an election cycle. This pattern, Horton writes, fits with what we have seen in Alabama.
In an even more curious note, Horton says the investigation was opened under the White-Slave Traffic Act of 1910. This is the disreputable statute that was used against such notables as boxing champion Jack Johnson and actor Charles Chaplin.
* Larisa Alexandrovna of at-Largely asks some intriguing questions. The case against Spitzer evidently started when a bank noticed suspicious money transfers and notified the IRS. The concern was some type of public corruption, perhaps bribery. But the funds were going out of Spitzer's account, not into it. How would that signal bribery? And what about U.S. Senator David Vitter (R-LA), who was connected to prostitution in Washington, D.C., and New Orleans? Is the Justice Department pursuing a criminal investigation against him?
* Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake provides analysis of the legal issues involved. She notes that the DOJ evidently is trying to go after Spitzer for a relatively obscure crime called "structuring." When it looked like that wouldn't stick, the feds evidently went for money laundering. The whole thing, Hamsher writes, has overtones of the Don Siegelman case in Alabama--go after a Democrat and get him for something, anything.
* Nicolle Belle at Crooks and Liars raises questions about the bank and the Justice Department. Why did the bank tell the IRS and not Spitzer himself about the suspicious money transfers? He's a longtime client and the governor of the state. Wouldn't it make sense to contact him directly? And why is a U.S. attorney involved in a prostitution case? Isn't this usually a state or local matter?
* Closer to home, Mooncat at Left in Alabama has an excellent analysis, noting that Spitzer, Siegelman and other Democrats who get in trouble usually don't have an army of loyalists who immediately come to their aid. That seems to be a Republican specialty.
Monday, March 10, 2008
What 60 Minutes Didn't Tell You, Part II
A little more than two weeks have passed since the 60 Minutes report on the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, and the story still seems to be resonating.
That speaks volumes for the power of the venerable CBS news magazine. But as we noted in a previous post, 60 Minutes also has its limitations and could only touch on certain aspects of the Siegelman case in a 14-minute time frame.
Here is another limitation facing 60 Minutes: The program cannot limit its reporting to justice-related stories with connections to Alabama. Those of us who have suffered from injustice in Alabama might wish to have 60 Minutes' undivided attention. But alas, the program actually has other stories to report.
In a perfect world, one where 60 Minutes devoted multiple episodes to nothing but justice-related stories connected to Alabama and the Deep South, what might we learn?
* Don Siegelman is not the only political prisoner in the Deep South--In fact, his case might not even be the most egregious example of the Justice Department being used by the Bush Administration for political purposes. That title might belong to the Paul Minor case in Mississippi. As a result of that miscarriage of justice, three men currently are in federal prison for crimes they definitely did not commit. Those men are Biloxi attorney Paul Minor and former state trial-court judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield.
What crimes did the Minor defendants commit? As we have shown in a series of posts here at Legal Schnauzer, they committed no crimes under the law. But Paul Minor, a highly successful trial lawyer who took on the tobacco and asbestos industries (among others), was a generous donor to Democratic candidates and causes. And Teel and Whitfield, while serving in nonpartisan capacities, were known as "plaintiff-friendly" judges. In Karl Rove's America, that's enough to land you in federal prison.
An overview of issues in the Minor case, can be found here.
Is the Minor case actually worse than the Siegelman case? That's hard to say. Kind of like comparing a tonsillectomy to a root canal. Both make you want to cringe.
I would give the Minor case extra points for several reasons. One, because the criminal charges were connected to judicial decisions that can be read on the Internet, it is easier to see the wrongheadedness of the Minor prosecution. Two, because a transcript in the Minor case has been available for quite some time, it is possible to see exactly how the judge used bogus jury instructions to cheat the defendants. Three, the activities in the Minor case were more transparent than those in the Siegelman case. Some of the charges in the Siegelman case revolved around alleged deals that took place behind closed doors. The charges in the Minor case revolved around judicial actions that took place in open court, and in a number of cases, involved rulings by appellate courts.
* As many problems as we have in our federal justice system, our state courts almost certainly are worse--State courts, both in Alabama and elsewhere, affect far more people than do federal courts. If you are a regular Joe, like your humble blogger, you are most likely to wind up in court because of a family matter, an estate matter, a consumer or business matter, a personal-injury matter, a property-related matter, a vehicle-related matter, or a criminal matter. All of these tend to be handled in state court.
Take my case, for example: I wound up in court because a troublesome neighbor, in a variety of ways, was trying to take over property that belongs to my wife and me. Ultimately, we were the victims of a crime, and when we sought to have it prosecuted, the perpetrator was found not guilty, and that allowed him to sue us for a "disfavored tort" known as malicious prosecution. Most Americans don't know it, but this can happen to just about any victim of a crime. If the defendant is found not guilty--and in my case the defendant actually confessed to the crime, according to the trial transcript--he can turn around and sue you. That means you are victimized in criminal court and in civil court.
In my case, my wife and I, at this moment, are being threatened with seizure of our home. All because we were crime victims who decided not to sit back and take it.
It's the kind of thing that most people think can't happen in America. But it does happen--just like Don Siegelman, Paul Minor, and others are made political prisoners.
Alabama is not alone in having sleazy state courts. A reader, an attorney, from my native Missouri compares the legal establishment in his home county to the mafia. Based on my experience, I would guess he is not exaggerating.
This is a story you are not likely to see on 60 Minutes. But if you ever are cheated by a judge or lawyer or prosecutor, it almost certainly will be in state court.
* Judges, at all levels, are the most under-scrutinized public officials in the country--In the Siegelman story, 60 Minutes barely mentioned U.S. Judge Mark Fuller. And yet Harper's legal-affairs contributor Scott Horton and Missouri attorney Paul Benton Weeks have shown that Fuller has almost certainly committed crimes of far greater severity than anything charged against Siegelman. U.S. Judge Henry Wingate, who "oversaw" the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, might be even worse than Fuller--if that's possible.
Just how bad is Wingate? You can get an idea here.
And state judges? Well, it's truly frightening what they get away with. Consider J. Michael Joiner, G. Dan Reeves, and Ron Jackson, three of the corrupt judges I've encountered in Shelby County, Alabama. They operate in a hermetically sealed courthouse in Columbiana, Alabama, where I suspect they don't even consider the possibility that they might be caught for their crimes. As I will show in upcoming posts, public officials such as the county clerk and the sheriff unquestioningly carry out their corrupt bidding. These judges know that many local lawyers laugh about the shenanigans in their courthouse, but don't dare report it to authorities. They know the local press is a bunch of lapdogs who aren't about to send a skeptical glance their way. And with Bush appointees like Alice Martin running the local U.S. attorney's office, these Republican judges know there is zero chance of prosecution for their federal crimes.
If 60 Minutes doesn't have time to tell these stories, and the local press is too afraid or lazy or biased to do it, how is the public to know about them? All I can say is, "Thank God for the blog."
Do corrupt public officials care about blogs. I've seen definite signs recently that somebody sure as heck cares about my blog. And they want to shut it down.
That story is coming up.
That speaks volumes for the power of the venerable CBS news magazine. But as we noted in a previous post, 60 Minutes also has its limitations and could only touch on certain aspects of the Siegelman case in a 14-minute time frame.
Here is another limitation facing 60 Minutes: The program cannot limit its reporting to justice-related stories with connections to Alabama. Those of us who have suffered from injustice in Alabama might wish to have 60 Minutes' undivided attention. But alas, the program actually has other stories to report.
In a perfect world, one where 60 Minutes devoted multiple episodes to nothing but justice-related stories connected to Alabama and the Deep South, what might we learn?
* Don Siegelman is not the only political prisoner in the Deep South--In fact, his case might not even be the most egregious example of the Justice Department being used by the Bush Administration for political purposes. That title might belong to the Paul Minor case in Mississippi. As a result of that miscarriage of justice, three men currently are in federal prison for crimes they definitely did not commit. Those men are Biloxi attorney Paul Minor and former state trial-court judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield.
What crimes did the Minor defendants commit? As we have shown in a series of posts here at Legal Schnauzer, they committed no crimes under the law. But Paul Minor, a highly successful trial lawyer who took on the tobacco and asbestos industries (among others), was a generous donor to Democratic candidates and causes. And Teel and Whitfield, while serving in nonpartisan capacities, were known as "plaintiff-friendly" judges. In Karl Rove's America, that's enough to land you in federal prison.
An overview of issues in the Minor case, can be found here.
Is the Minor case actually worse than the Siegelman case? That's hard to say. Kind of like comparing a tonsillectomy to a root canal. Both make you want to cringe.
I would give the Minor case extra points for several reasons. One, because the criminal charges were connected to judicial decisions that can be read on the Internet, it is easier to see the wrongheadedness of the Minor prosecution. Two, because a transcript in the Minor case has been available for quite some time, it is possible to see exactly how the judge used bogus jury instructions to cheat the defendants. Three, the activities in the Minor case were more transparent than those in the Siegelman case. Some of the charges in the Siegelman case revolved around alleged deals that took place behind closed doors. The charges in the Minor case revolved around judicial actions that took place in open court, and in a number of cases, involved rulings by appellate courts.
* As many problems as we have in our federal justice system, our state courts almost certainly are worse--State courts, both in Alabama and elsewhere, affect far more people than do federal courts. If you are a regular Joe, like your humble blogger, you are most likely to wind up in court because of a family matter, an estate matter, a consumer or business matter, a personal-injury matter, a property-related matter, a vehicle-related matter, or a criminal matter. All of these tend to be handled in state court.
Take my case, for example: I wound up in court because a troublesome neighbor, in a variety of ways, was trying to take over property that belongs to my wife and me. Ultimately, we were the victims of a crime, and when we sought to have it prosecuted, the perpetrator was found not guilty, and that allowed him to sue us for a "disfavored tort" known as malicious prosecution. Most Americans don't know it, but this can happen to just about any victim of a crime. If the defendant is found not guilty--and in my case the defendant actually confessed to the crime, according to the trial transcript--he can turn around and sue you. That means you are victimized in criminal court and in civil court.
In my case, my wife and I, at this moment, are being threatened with seizure of our home. All because we were crime victims who decided not to sit back and take it.
It's the kind of thing that most people think can't happen in America. But it does happen--just like Don Siegelman, Paul Minor, and others are made political prisoners.
Alabama is not alone in having sleazy state courts. A reader, an attorney, from my native Missouri compares the legal establishment in his home county to the mafia. Based on my experience, I would guess he is not exaggerating.
This is a story you are not likely to see on 60 Minutes. But if you ever are cheated by a judge or lawyer or prosecutor, it almost certainly will be in state court.
* Judges, at all levels, are the most under-scrutinized public officials in the country--In the Siegelman story, 60 Minutes barely mentioned U.S. Judge Mark Fuller. And yet Harper's legal-affairs contributor Scott Horton and Missouri attorney Paul Benton Weeks have shown that Fuller has almost certainly committed crimes of far greater severity than anything charged against Siegelman. U.S. Judge Henry Wingate, who "oversaw" the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, might be even worse than Fuller--if that's possible.
Just how bad is Wingate? You can get an idea here.
And state judges? Well, it's truly frightening what they get away with. Consider J. Michael Joiner, G. Dan Reeves, and Ron Jackson, three of the corrupt judges I've encountered in Shelby County, Alabama. They operate in a hermetically sealed courthouse in Columbiana, Alabama, where I suspect they don't even consider the possibility that they might be caught for their crimes. As I will show in upcoming posts, public officials such as the county clerk and the sheriff unquestioningly carry out their corrupt bidding. These judges know that many local lawyers laugh about the shenanigans in their courthouse, but don't dare report it to authorities. They know the local press is a bunch of lapdogs who aren't about to send a skeptical glance their way. And with Bush appointees like Alice Martin running the local U.S. attorney's office, these Republican judges know there is zero chance of prosecution for their federal crimes.
If 60 Minutes doesn't have time to tell these stories, and the local press is too afraid or lazy or biased to do it, how is the public to know about them? All I can say is, "Thank God for the blog."
Do corrupt public officials care about blogs. I've seen definite signs recently that somebody sure as heck cares about my blog. And they want to shut it down.
That story is coming up.
Is an Indictment in Rove's Future?
Former Bush Administration advisor Karl Rove said Sunday night that he expects to be indicted by the end of the year.
The comment came in a highly charged lecture and question-answer session at the University of Iowa.
Think Progress reports that Rove's comment came in response to a question about the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame. "I haven't been indicted yet, but I fully expect to be by the end of the year," Rove said.
Rove was "seemingly joking" at the time of the statement, Think Progress reports. No word on whether Rove was asked about his role in the political use of the U.S. Justice Department, an issue highlighted by the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, a Democrat.
A group of students and local citizens held a mock trial of Rove in the student union before the lecture. Rove became contentious during his presentation, saying one questioner had a "simple, stupid mind."
Our friends at WriteChic report that two people attempted to execute citizen's arrests on Rove during his appearance in Iowa. Rove received a $40,000 fee for his trouble.
The comment came in a highly charged lecture and question-answer session at the University of Iowa.
Think Progress reports that Rove's comment came in response to a question about the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame. "I haven't been indicted yet, but I fully expect to be by the end of the year," Rove said.
Rove was "seemingly joking" at the time of the statement, Think Progress reports. No word on whether Rove was asked about his role in the political use of the U.S. Justice Department, an issue highlighted by the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, a Democrat.
A group of students and local citizens held a mock trial of Rove in the student union before the lecture. Rove became contentious during his presentation, saying one questioner had a "simple, stupid mind."
Our friends at WriteChic report that two people attempted to execute citizen's arrests on Rove during his appearance in Iowa. Rove received a $40,000 fee for his trouble.
Eddie Curran and 60 Minutes, Revisited
Let's look at a few more interesting points raised by the letter from Mobile Press-Register Eddie Curran to 60 Minutes, regarding the news magazine's story on the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
We're probably giving Curran's missive more attention than it deserves. But our guy Eddie is the reporter who is credited with sparking the investigation that led to Siegelman's conviction. Can we better understand the Siegelman prosecution if we understand the mindset of the reporter who "broke" the story?
Let's take a look by examining some of Curran's key points:
Eddie Curran: Siegelman attorney Doug Jones, who was interviewed extensively for the 60 Minutes piece, did not represent Siegelman at the trial and did not attend the proceedings. That is a big deal.
Legal Schnauzer: My experience with courts tells me that attending a trial is overrated. On my coverage of the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, I've had readers state that they were at the trial and I wasn't--therefore, they knew way more about the case than I did. If you have read the indictment, the trial transcript, and studied the relevant law, you are far more likely to know what went on at a trial than if you merely attended the trial. Attending a trial without knowing the law and issues involved is like attending a baseball game without knowing the rules of the sport. You aren't likely to get all that much out of it. The mere fact Doug Jones didn't attend the trial doesn't mean he's a poor source for the issues raised by the Sigelman case.
EC: Corroborating evidence is all important. Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson is not to be believed because her statements are not backed with corroborating evidence.
LS: Curran is the master of the double standard. He chastises 60 Minutes for failing to present corroborating evidence regarding Simpson's statements. But Curran himself? He says in his letter that Richard Scrushy gave a check to Don Siegelman at a second meeting, not the first one referenced by 60 Minutes. Does Curran provide any evidence to support that claim? Nope. He could have quoted his own stories, assuming they support his claims regarding the check and Doug Jones' statements. But Curran doesn't do it.
EC: The fact that Jill Simpson has testified and answered questions under oath indicates nothing about the truthfulness of her story.
LS: Curran evidently doesn't think people have anything to fear from perjury charges. He might want to check with Roger Clemens about that. And an attorney who perjures herself has much more to lose than a baseball player would for the same offense. Perjury is a felony, and a lawyer who is found guilty of a felony would lose her license--probably for quite some time. Simpson is putting her livelihood on the line. That should say something about the strength of her story.
EC: Former Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods is a friend of Siegelman's, and that means you can't trust Woods' statements about the weakness of the prosecution's case.
LS: Jeepers, talk about a double standard. We have numerous reports that, as governor, Don Siegelman caused Mark Fuller's activities to be investigated. There is reason to believe Fuller holds a serious grudge against Siegelman. But Curran has no problem with Fuller presiding over the Siegelman trial. We know that Bill Canary served as an advisor to Bob Riley, Siegelman's opponent for governor. But Curran evidently sees no problem with Canary's wife, Leura, overseeing the Siegelman prosecution. But Grant Woods, supposedly a friend of Siegelman's (even though Woods is a member of the opposing political party), makes supportive statements regarding Siegelman on national TV? Now that's something to really be concerned about!
EC: The Siegelman administration was beset by numerous scandals, involving everything from landfills to warehouses to motorcycles.
LS: Curran says these are scandals, but nowhere in his letter does he say what laws were broken in each case. I haven't read all of the 100-plus investigative articles Curran wrote about the Siegelman administration. But the ones I have read follow a similar pattern. Siegelman and associates are portrayed as "wheeler-dealers," but Curran never states what laws are broken. I suspect if one chronicled most any governor closely enough--and this includes Bob Riley--you could make them look like wheeler-dealers. After all, that's kind of what governors do--they wheel and deal--with legislators, business people, constituents, and so on. The issue in the Siegelman case is: Did he violate the law. And the actual law is a subject that doesn't seem to hold Curran's interest.
EC: When Jill Simpson alleged that Karl Rove had asked her to come up with evidence of Siegelman cheating on his wife, 60 Minutes failed to ask key followup questions. Such questions include: Does she have records of trips she made in order to follow Siegelman? Who paid for her surveillance? How did she follow Siegelman? Without asking these questions, and getting appropriate answers, 60 Minutes gives viewers little reason to believe Simpson's story.
LS: Curran has a point with this one. The questions he lists are legitimate ones that should have been raised with Simpson. My guess is that these questions were asked, but the answers were left out of the show because it was trying to cover a complex story in only 14 minutes. Perhaps a better criticism of 60 Minutes on this score would be: Why include the sex allegation at all? It had little, if anything, to do with the main issues raised by the story. And if you don't have time to fully explore the issue, it's probably best to leave it out. A better use of that time might have been to address the numerous conflicts of interest U.S. Judge Mark Fuller had in the case. Perhaps 60 Minutes should have interviewed Missouri attorney Paul Benton Weeks about his affidavit alleging behavior that is certainly unethical, and probably criminal, by Judge Fuller.
We're probably giving Curran's missive more attention than it deserves. But our guy Eddie is the reporter who is credited with sparking the investigation that led to Siegelman's conviction. Can we better understand the Siegelman prosecution if we understand the mindset of the reporter who "broke" the story?
Let's take a look by examining some of Curran's key points:
Eddie Curran: Siegelman attorney Doug Jones, who was interviewed extensively for the 60 Minutes piece, did not represent Siegelman at the trial and did not attend the proceedings. That is a big deal.
Legal Schnauzer: My experience with courts tells me that attending a trial is overrated. On my coverage of the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, I've had readers state that they were at the trial and I wasn't--therefore, they knew way more about the case than I did. If you have read the indictment, the trial transcript, and studied the relevant law, you are far more likely to know what went on at a trial than if you merely attended the trial. Attending a trial without knowing the law and issues involved is like attending a baseball game without knowing the rules of the sport. You aren't likely to get all that much out of it. The mere fact Doug Jones didn't attend the trial doesn't mean he's a poor source for the issues raised by the Sigelman case.
EC: Corroborating evidence is all important. Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson is not to be believed because her statements are not backed with corroborating evidence.
LS: Curran is the master of the double standard. He chastises 60 Minutes for failing to present corroborating evidence regarding Simpson's statements. But Curran himself? He says in his letter that Richard Scrushy gave a check to Don Siegelman at a second meeting, not the first one referenced by 60 Minutes. Does Curran provide any evidence to support that claim? Nope. He could have quoted his own stories, assuming they support his claims regarding the check and Doug Jones' statements. But Curran doesn't do it.
EC: The fact that Jill Simpson has testified and answered questions under oath indicates nothing about the truthfulness of her story.
LS: Curran evidently doesn't think people have anything to fear from perjury charges. He might want to check with Roger Clemens about that. And an attorney who perjures herself has much more to lose than a baseball player would for the same offense. Perjury is a felony, and a lawyer who is found guilty of a felony would lose her license--probably for quite some time. Simpson is putting her livelihood on the line. That should say something about the strength of her story.
EC: Former Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods is a friend of Siegelman's, and that means you can't trust Woods' statements about the weakness of the prosecution's case.
LS: Jeepers, talk about a double standard. We have numerous reports that, as governor, Don Siegelman caused Mark Fuller's activities to be investigated. There is reason to believe Fuller holds a serious grudge against Siegelman. But Curran has no problem with Fuller presiding over the Siegelman trial. We know that Bill Canary served as an advisor to Bob Riley, Siegelman's opponent for governor. But Curran evidently sees no problem with Canary's wife, Leura, overseeing the Siegelman prosecution. But Grant Woods, supposedly a friend of Siegelman's (even though Woods is a member of the opposing political party), makes supportive statements regarding Siegelman on national TV? Now that's something to really be concerned about!
EC: The Siegelman administration was beset by numerous scandals, involving everything from landfills to warehouses to motorcycles.
LS: Curran says these are scandals, but nowhere in his letter does he say what laws were broken in each case. I haven't read all of the 100-plus investigative articles Curran wrote about the Siegelman administration. But the ones I have read follow a similar pattern. Siegelman and associates are portrayed as "wheeler-dealers," but Curran never states what laws are broken. I suspect if one chronicled most any governor closely enough--and this includes Bob Riley--you could make them look like wheeler-dealers. After all, that's kind of what governors do--they wheel and deal--with legislators, business people, constituents, and so on. The issue in the Siegelman case is: Did he violate the law. And the actual law is a subject that doesn't seem to hold Curran's interest.
EC: When Jill Simpson alleged that Karl Rove had asked her to come up with evidence of Siegelman cheating on his wife, 60 Minutes failed to ask key followup questions. Such questions include: Does she have records of trips she made in order to follow Siegelman? Who paid for her surveillance? How did she follow Siegelman? Without asking these questions, and getting appropriate answers, 60 Minutes gives viewers little reason to believe Simpson's story.
LS: Curran has a point with this one. The questions he lists are legitimate ones that should have been raised with Simpson. My guess is that these questions were asked, but the answers were left out of the show because it was trying to cover a complex story in only 14 minutes. Perhaps a better criticism of 60 Minutes on this score would be: Why include the sex allegation at all? It had little, if anything, to do with the main issues raised by the story. And if you don't have time to fully explore the issue, it's probably best to leave it out. A better use of that time might have been to address the numerous conflicts of interest U.S. Judge Mark Fuller had in the case. Perhaps 60 Minutes should have interviewed Missouri attorney Paul Benton Weeks about his affidavit alleging behavior that is certainly unethical, and probably criminal, by Judge Fuller.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Alabama Reporters in the Spotlight
Two newspaper reporters appear to have played curious roles in the use of the federal justice system for political purposes in Alabama.
Perhaps the best known of those reporters is Eddie Curran of the Mobile Press-Register. Curran, who is credited with breaking the story that led to the prosecution of former Governor Don Siegelman, is an "out there" fellow who has been very public in his defense of federal officials who initiated and followed through on the Siegelman case. We have attempted to analyze Mr. Curran's work, and you can check our thoughts here, here, and here. Missouri attorney and blogger Rick Fischer has contributed greatly to our understanding of Curran's work, and you can read about that here.
The other reporter is Brett Blackledge, of The Birmingham News. Even though Blackledge has won a Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of the Alabama two-year college story, he has generally been a more low-profile figure than Eddie Curran.
But Scott Horton, of Harper's, provides a look at the mindset behind Blackledge's work. And it comes courtesy of a reader who had communicated with Blackledge via e-mail. The reader wrote to Blackledge after reading his story about Karl Rove's denials of allegations made by Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson to 60 Minutes.
Here was the reader's query:
You didn’t explain in your story who conducted this telephone interview: “It never happened,” Rove said in a telephone interview. “Seeing where I was working at the time, a reasonable person could ask why I would even take an interest in that case.”
Then seventeen paragraphs later, you finally followed up on Rove’s question as to “why a reasonable person could ask himself why Rove would take an interest in this case”: Rove has a history of work in Alabama, including in some of the state’s most hotly contested and nasty judicial campaigns. From 1994 to 2000, Rove’s consulting helped put a Republican stamp on the Alabama Supreme Court.
I’m just a humble reader, but doesn’t that last paragraph address the “why” in Rove’s statement? Why, indeed, was a slimeball like Rove ever involved in Alabama in any way? Show us how you can dig. Tell us more about Rove’s involvement in Alabama. That’s news that Alabama readers are entitled to. In which campaigns was Rove involved and what was the nature of the involvement?
Horton then provides background on Rove's work in Alabama, something Blackledge evidently did not want to do:
In fact, Karl Rove’s work as a campaign advisor in Alabama dates back at least to 1992, and continued after he went to the White House, Rove’s disclaimers notwithstanding. I’m reasonably confident that this is why Rove refused an on-camera interview with CBS, or with any other serious media organization. In addition to four Supreme Court races, he has been involved frequently in less formal ways in a half dozen other races, and most significantly he served as campaign advisor to William Pryor. That’s the same William Pryor who actually initiated and drove the case against former Governor Siegelman.
A former executive of the Business Council of Alabama recently described to me in some detail Rove’s proposals for politicizing the organization—turning it into a battle ax for the Alabama G.O.P., with Rove’s good friend William Canary in the foreground and Rove himself hovering in the distance. It was a brilliant plan from the G.O.P.’s perspective. And the fact that no major Alabama paper has ever reported on it tells the reader a great deal about the state’s incurious media.
What kind of reply did the reader receive from Blackledge? Here it is:
You know, I think you’ve connected two dots that are quite unrelated. First, there are many political operatives (media, campaign consultant types) who work campaigns in Alabama. I, for one, have a close college friend, a very prominent Democratic operative based in DC, who also has worked Alabama races. That’s not particularly unusual. You go where jobs are, where campaigns are, sometimes you hit it big and get a high-profile candidate, and land in the White House (i.e. Carville, Atwater, Rove, et al.)
But you seem to think that because they work in Alabama, they have an interest in future races for which they are not paid, and do not have a candidate. That’s not at all a safe assumption, nor is it how the business works. But further, you also seem to think that a White House counselor who previously worked races in Alabama (and just about every other Southern state where he could get a candidate to hire him) has an interest in all future races. While he may for reasons for which we now are not aware, this on its face does not logically connect, despite the rather sensational, and quite unbelievable, uncorroborated claims to date that have been made by one person.
We could recount once again the four campaigns on which Rove worked in our newspaper, which we have done numerous times. Frankly, I’m not sure any of that matters. But again, you must remember, I do not, as a matter of routine, believe that black helicopters are flying above.
What does this exchange tell us about Brett Blackledge? Horton provides the answer:
So there you have it. A serious reporter would have plowed in and asked Rove questions about his actual involvement in electoral politics in Alabama—that is, he or she would have examined the predicates of the Simpson story to see if any of them tally. But not Blackledge. In his mind, Rove is uninvolved, so there is no point in asking any such questions. Moreover, people who believe that he is involved “believe that black helicopters are flying above.”
And certainly, Blackledge speaks conclusively from real life when he tells us that the simple fact that a man was involved in four races long ago does not mean he has any interest in things transpiring today. I’d love to know what kind of real life experience that is. No doubt about one thing: Blackledge is just the kind of reporter Karl Rove loves.
Perhaps the best known of those reporters is Eddie Curran of the Mobile Press-Register. Curran, who is credited with breaking the story that led to the prosecution of former Governor Don Siegelman, is an "out there" fellow who has been very public in his defense of federal officials who initiated and followed through on the Siegelman case. We have attempted to analyze Mr. Curran's work, and you can check our thoughts here, here, and here. Missouri attorney and blogger Rick Fischer has contributed greatly to our understanding of Curran's work, and you can read about that here.
The other reporter is Brett Blackledge, of The Birmingham News. Even though Blackledge has won a Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of the Alabama two-year college story, he has generally been a more low-profile figure than Eddie Curran.
But Scott Horton, of Harper's, provides a look at the mindset behind Blackledge's work. And it comes courtesy of a reader who had communicated with Blackledge via e-mail. The reader wrote to Blackledge after reading his story about Karl Rove's denials of allegations made by Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson to 60 Minutes.
Here was the reader's query:
You didn’t explain in your story who conducted this telephone interview: “It never happened,” Rove said in a telephone interview. “Seeing where I was working at the time, a reasonable person could ask why I would even take an interest in that case.”
Then seventeen paragraphs later, you finally followed up on Rove’s question as to “why a reasonable person could ask himself why Rove would take an interest in this case”: Rove has a history of work in Alabama, including in some of the state’s most hotly contested and nasty judicial campaigns. From 1994 to 2000, Rove’s consulting helped put a Republican stamp on the Alabama Supreme Court.
I’m just a humble reader, but doesn’t that last paragraph address the “why” in Rove’s statement? Why, indeed, was a slimeball like Rove ever involved in Alabama in any way? Show us how you can dig. Tell us more about Rove’s involvement in Alabama. That’s news that Alabama readers are entitled to. In which campaigns was Rove involved and what was the nature of the involvement?
Horton then provides background on Rove's work in Alabama, something Blackledge evidently did not want to do:
In fact, Karl Rove’s work as a campaign advisor in Alabama dates back at least to 1992, and continued after he went to the White House, Rove’s disclaimers notwithstanding. I’m reasonably confident that this is why Rove refused an on-camera interview with CBS, or with any other serious media organization. In addition to four Supreme Court races, he has been involved frequently in less formal ways in a half dozen other races, and most significantly he served as campaign advisor to William Pryor. That’s the same William Pryor who actually initiated and drove the case against former Governor Siegelman.
A former executive of the Business Council of Alabama recently described to me in some detail Rove’s proposals for politicizing the organization—turning it into a battle ax for the Alabama G.O.P., with Rove’s good friend William Canary in the foreground and Rove himself hovering in the distance. It was a brilliant plan from the G.O.P.’s perspective. And the fact that no major Alabama paper has ever reported on it tells the reader a great deal about the state’s incurious media.
What kind of reply did the reader receive from Blackledge? Here it is:
You know, I think you’ve connected two dots that are quite unrelated. First, there are many political operatives (media, campaign consultant types) who work campaigns in Alabama. I, for one, have a close college friend, a very prominent Democratic operative based in DC, who also has worked Alabama races. That’s not particularly unusual. You go where jobs are, where campaigns are, sometimes you hit it big and get a high-profile candidate, and land in the White House (i.e. Carville, Atwater, Rove, et al.)
But you seem to think that because they work in Alabama, they have an interest in future races for which they are not paid, and do not have a candidate. That’s not at all a safe assumption, nor is it how the business works. But further, you also seem to think that a White House counselor who previously worked races in Alabama (and just about every other Southern state where he could get a candidate to hire him) has an interest in all future races. While he may for reasons for which we now are not aware, this on its face does not logically connect, despite the rather sensational, and quite unbelievable, uncorroborated claims to date that have been made by one person.
We could recount once again the four campaigns on which Rove worked in our newspaper, which we have done numerous times. Frankly, I’m not sure any of that matters. But again, you must remember, I do not, as a matter of routine, believe that black helicopters are flying above.
What does this exchange tell us about Brett Blackledge? Horton provides the answer:
So there you have it. A serious reporter would have plowed in and asked Rove questions about his actual involvement in electoral politics in Alabama—that is, he or she would have examined the predicates of the Simpson story to see if any of them tally. But not Blackledge. In his mind, Rove is uninvolved, so there is no point in asking any such questions. Moreover, people who believe that he is involved “believe that black helicopters are flying above.”
And certainly, Blackledge speaks conclusively from real life when he tells us that the simple fact that a man was involved in four races long ago does not mean he has any interest in things transpiring today. I’d love to know what kind of real life experience that is. No doubt about one thing: Blackledge is just the kind of reporter Karl Rove loves.
Turning Back Alice Martin's Army
Birmingham, like most American cities these days, is a one-newspaper town. So if I want to keep up with local news, I have no choice but to hold my nose and read The Birmingham News.
One story that caught my attention in the News last week involved the issuance of subpoenas for a number of public officials in the ongoing investigation of the Alabama two-year college system. From reading the News, I had the impression this was a low-key, administrative event.
So imagine my astonishment when I read on the Web today that this little activity actually involved a federal raid on the Alabama Legislature--one that was effectively turned back!
Just how ignorant would Alabamians be without the Web and bloggers like Scott Horton at Harper's and Glynn Wilson at Locust Fork News?
And who designed the raid on the state house? Why, none other than Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama.
According to Horton, Martin sent U.S. marshals to Montgomery on Thursday to serve subpoenas on the floor of the legislature. She even had Birmingham television crews on alert to catch video of the raid. But guess what happened? Martin's plan failed, and here is Horton's account:
As this was getting underway, Martin conferred with her staff about a media spectacular. She described a plan to send a platoon of federal marshals, back up by television media crews, into the Statehouse to serve subpoenas on law-makers on the floor of the legislature. This would be carefully timed just to make the evening news.
And on Thursday the appointed day arrived. Martin directed that her action plan go into effect. She dispatched a group of federal marshals to Montgomery, accompanied by a television crew, with instructions to go serve grand jury subpoenas on a large group of mostly Democratic legislators. Then the plan went amiss. The Speaker of the state house, instructed the chamber’s own law enforcement personnel to bar the way, and Martin’s grandstanding was blocked. It didn’t make the evening news. Martin’s media hopes were crushed.
Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork News, says the U.S. marshals might have violated state law while trying to carry out Martin's scheme. Wilson notes that Code of Alabama 29-1-7 prohibits the serving of members of the legislature while they are in session. Martin, who seems to hold little regard for federal law, evidently holds even less regard for state law.
Here's how Wilson describes Martin's actions:
In a move that can only be described as political theater, as opposed to honest, objective law enforcement, United States Attorney Alice Martin sent henchmen from the U.S. Marshals Service all the way from Birmingham to Montgomery this week to make a show of serving subpoenas on members of the Alabama Legislature.
If not for long-standing Legislative rules, they would have stormed into the Legislative chamber, with TV cameras from Birmingham in tow, to put on a real show.
But in the end, the show did not have the ratings power of the recent CBS News “60 Minutes” segment on the political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, so Karl Rove must be sorely disappointed down there in his Rosemary Beach bungalow not far from the Alabama line.
“The drama surrounding these actions and the U.S. Department of Justice’s disruption of a legislative session for the routine serving of a summons to appear in court sends a poor signal to Alabama citizens who are already complaining about partisan political interference into the federal prosecution of former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman,” Spearman said. “These ladies and gentlemen have not been charged with a crime and could have been served by other means in their local communities, not in Montgomery during a legislative session in front of TV cameras and reporters.”
As for the little matter of state law, Wilson writes:
State law actually prohibits serving members of the legislature while they are in session. Section 29-1-7 of the Alabama Code protects members from this kind of action by U.S. Marshals yesterday. In fact, the Marshals could have violated this law by their disruption of the session and have been charged with a misdemeanor.
“Thursday’s action only strengthens our resolve to insist that the U.S. House and Senate as well as the U.S. Attorney General immediately launch an inquiry into Alabama’s federal justice system to assure Alabama citizens that politics and partisanship have not been used in prosecutions or in the serving of subpoenas,” Spearman said. “If Republican operatives had any advance knowledge of yesterday’s serving of subpoenas at the Statehouse, they should have to testify before Congress under oath.”
Here's how the law reads:
Section 29-1-7
Privilege of members from arrest and civil process.
(a) Members of the Legislature of Alabama shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest and shall not be subject to service of any summons, citation or other civil process during their attendance at the session of their respective houses and in going to and returning from the same.
(b) Whoever knowingly and willfully denies to any member of the Legislature the privilege and immunity granted herein is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $1,000.00 or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both.
(Acts 1959, 1st Ex. Sess., No. 88, p. 148.)
One story that caught my attention in the News last week involved the issuance of subpoenas for a number of public officials in the ongoing investigation of the Alabama two-year college system. From reading the News, I had the impression this was a low-key, administrative event.
So imagine my astonishment when I read on the Web today that this little activity actually involved a federal raid on the Alabama Legislature--one that was effectively turned back!
Just how ignorant would Alabamians be without the Web and bloggers like Scott Horton at Harper's and Glynn Wilson at Locust Fork News?
And who designed the raid on the state house? Why, none other than Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama.
According to Horton, Martin sent U.S. marshals to Montgomery on Thursday to serve subpoenas on the floor of the legislature. She even had Birmingham television crews on alert to catch video of the raid. But guess what happened? Martin's plan failed, and here is Horton's account:
As this was getting underway, Martin conferred with her staff about a media spectacular. She described a plan to send a platoon of federal marshals, back up by television media crews, into the Statehouse to serve subpoenas on law-makers on the floor of the legislature. This would be carefully timed just to make the evening news.
And on Thursday the appointed day arrived. Martin directed that her action plan go into effect. She dispatched a group of federal marshals to Montgomery, accompanied by a television crew, with instructions to go serve grand jury subpoenas on a large group of mostly Democratic legislators. Then the plan went amiss. The Speaker of the state house, instructed the chamber’s own law enforcement personnel to bar the way, and Martin’s grandstanding was blocked. It didn’t make the evening news. Martin’s media hopes were crushed.
Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork News, says the U.S. marshals might have violated state law while trying to carry out Martin's scheme. Wilson notes that Code of Alabama 29-1-7 prohibits the serving of members of the legislature while they are in session. Martin, who seems to hold little regard for federal law, evidently holds even less regard for state law.
Here's how Wilson describes Martin's actions:
In a move that can only be described as political theater, as opposed to honest, objective law enforcement, United States Attorney Alice Martin sent henchmen from the U.S. Marshals Service all the way from Birmingham to Montgomery this week to make a show of serving subpoenas on members of the Alabama Legislature.
If not for long-standing Legislative rules, they would have stormed into the Legislative chamber, with TV cameras from Birmingham in tow, to put on a real show.
But in the end, the show did not have the ratings power of the recent CBS News “60 Minutes” segment on the political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, so Karl Rove must be sorely disappointed down there in his Rosemary Beach bungalow not far from the Alabama line.
Most of the targeted legislators are Democrats, and Martin's actions drew a response from the Alabama Democratic Party:
Alabama Democratic Party Executive Director Jim Spearman called into question the method by which U.S. Marshals attempted to serve legislators subpoenas to appear to testify in a grand jury proceeding. Reporters were apparently tipped off by calls stating U.S. Marshals were coming to the Alabama Statehouse to serve some legislators, he said in a press release.“The drama surrounding these actions and the U.S. Department of Justice’s disruption of a legislative session for the routine serving of a summons to appear in court sends a poor signal to Alabama citizens who are already complaining about partisan political interference into the federal prosecution of former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman,” Spearman said. “These ladies and gentlemen have not been charged with a crime and could have been served by other means in their local communities, not in Montgomery during a legislative session in front of TV cameras and reporters.”
As for the little matter of state law, Wilson writes:
State law actually prohibits serving members of the legislature while they are in session. Section 29-1-7 of the Alabama Code protects members from this kind of action by U.S. Marshals yesterday. In fact, the Marshals could have violated this law by their disruption of the session and have been charged with a misdemeanor.
“Thursday’s action only strengthens our resolve to insist that the U.S. House and Senate as well as the U.S. Attorney General immediately launch an inquiry into Alabama’s federal justice system to assure Alabama citizens that politics and partisanship have not been used in prosecutions or in the serving of subpoenas,” Spearman said. “If Republican operatives had any advance knowledge of yesterday’s serving of subpoenas at the Statehouse, they should have to testify before Congress under oath.”
Here's how the law reads:
Section 29-1-7
Privilege of members from arrest and civil process.
(a) Members of the Legislature of Alabama shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest and shall not be subject to service of any summons, citation or other civil process during their attendance at the session of their respective houses and in going to and returning from the same.
(b) Whoever knowingly and willfully denies to any member of the Legislature the privilege and immunity granted herein is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $1,000.00 or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both.
(Acts 1959, 1st Ex. Sess., No. 88, p. 148.)
Looks Like Eddie Curran Was "Flat Wrong"
Sometimes it takes someone who is observing events from a distance, an outsider you might say, to really get to the heart of an issue.
Rick Fischer, an attorney from O'Fallon, Missouri, might be such an outsider when it comes to the Don Siegelman case--and particularly the role played by Mobile Press-Register reporter Eddie Curran.
Fischer writes a blog called Wake Up Call Missouri. The blog normally deals with issues in Missouri or Fischer's local area, St. Charles County. But he has taken an interest in the Siegelman case, and now provides considerable insight on Curran's recent letter to 60 Minutes.
After studying Curran's letter, the transcript of the 60 Minutes story on the Siegelman prosecution, and press reports of the trial, Fischer finds that Curran appears to be playing a not-so-artful game of deception.
At the heart of Curran's letter is his claim that Siegelman attorney Doug Jones made a false statement when he told 60 Minutes that witness Nick Bailey could not have seen former HealthSouth CEO give Siegelman a $250,000 check because the check was dated after the meeting Bailey was referencing. But Fischer shows that Curran is the one who seems to have a problem with facts:
Curran's claim that the 60 Minutes piece stated Bailey testified at trial about the $250,000 check is untrue. I have read the transcript and watched the program and there is absolutely nothing to support Curran's allegation. I will explain his "mistake" below.
Curran also wrote; The problem is that there was no testimony that the first $250,000 check was given to Siegelman at this meeting. Again, Curran is wrong in this statement. The 60 Minutes piece claimed that Bailey "indicated" the $250,000 check was given to Siegelman at the first meeting. And, contrary to Curran's claim, this appears to be true.
So where did Curran go wrong? Fischer explains:
Now, to explain Curran's error; Bailey did testify that Siegelman received the check at the first meeting but this testimony was apparently given at the grand jury proceedings not at trial. Siegelman's lawyers used Bailey's grand jury testimony to impeach (attack his credibility) him at trial.
Curran was actually correct when telling his wide-eyed readers that there was no testimony at the trial from Bailey that Siegelman received the check at the first meeting. However, 60 Minutes and Jones never made that claim. Curran either made a major blunder on this point or is intentionally misleading his readers, in any case Curran is the one who is "flat wrong."
In his 60 Minutes letter, Curran makes a big point of the fact that he covered the trial. But evidently Curran didn't understand what was going on nearly as well as Fischer, who was hundreds of miles away at the time. Actually, as Fischer points out, Curran might have understood perfectly well what was going on, but he now wants to mislead his readers:
In fact, if you watch the 60 Minutes piece, you will see that Bailey's credibility was a major issue at the trial, which is why Bailey's claim that prosecutors made him write out his testimony over 70 times is crucial. These statements were not given to Siegelman's lawyers and this evidence would have been so damaging it is doubtful the prosecutor would have allowed Bailey to testify. Of course, it would also be serious misconduct on the part of the prosecutor to withhold this evidence, a point Curran chooses to ignore.
Fischer really gets to the heart of the matter regarding Curran when he writes:
It is my understanding that Curran has spent years covering this story and he even claims his reporting is what led to the investigation. That he made such a major mistake in his letter to 60 Minutes is stunning and should call into question all of his reporting in this case.
Rick Fischer, an attorney from O'Fallon, Missouri, might be such an outsider when it comes to the Don Siegelman case--and particularly the role played by Mobile Press-Register reporter Eddie Curran.
Fischer writes a blog called Wake Up Call Missouri. The blog normally deals with issues in Missouri or Fischer's local area, St. Charles County. But he has taken an interest in the Siegelman case, and now provides considerable insight on Curran's recent letter to 60 Minutes.
After studying Curran's letter, the transcript of the 60 Minutes story on the Siegelman prosecution, and press reports of the trial, Fischer finds that Curran appears to be playing a not-so-artful game of deception.
At the heart of Curran's letter is his claim that Siegelman attorney Doug Jones made a false statement when he told 60 Minutes that witness Nick Bailey could not have seen former HealthSouth CEO give Siegelman a $250,000 check because the check was dated after the meeting Bailey was referencing. But Fischer shows that Curran is the one who seems to have a problem with facts:
Curran's claim that the 60 Minutes piece stated Bailey testified at trial about the $250,000 check is untrue. I have read the transcript and watched the program and there is absolutely nothing to support Curran's allegation. I will explain his "mistake" below.
Curran also wrote; The problem is that there was no testimony that the first $250,000 check was given to Siegelman at this meeting. Again, Curran is wrong in this statement. The 60 Minutes piece claimed that Bailey "indicated" the $250,000 check was given to Siegelman at the first meeting. And, contrary to Curran's claim, this appears to be true.
So where did Curran go wrong? Fischer explains:
Now, to explain Curran's error; Bailey did testify that Siegelman received the check at the first meeting but this testimony was apparently given at the grand jury proceedings not at trial. Siegelman's lawyers used Bailey's grand jury testimony to impeach (attack his credibility) him at trial.
Curran was actually correct when telling his wide-eyed readers that there was no testimony at the trial from Bailey that Siegelman received the check at the first meeting. However, 60 Minutes and Jones never made that claim. Curran either made a major blunder on this point or is intentionally misleading his readers, in any case Curran is the one who is "flat wrong."
In his 60 Minutes letter, Curran makes a big point of the fact that he covered the trial. But evidently Curran didn't understand what was going on nearly as well as Fischer, who was hundreds of miles away at the time. Actually, as Fischer points out, Curran might have understood perfectly well what was going on, but he now wants to mislead his readers:
In fact, if you watch the 60 Minutes piece, you will see that Bailey's credibility was a major issue at the trial, which is why Bailey's claim that prosecutors made him write out his testimony over 70 times is crucial. These statements were not given to Siegelman's lawyers and this evidence would have been so damaging it is doubtful the prosecutor would have allowed Bailey to testify. Of course, it would also be serious misconduct on the part of the prosecutor to withhold this evidence, a point Curran chooses to ignore.
Fischer really gets to the heart of the matter regarding Curran when he writes:
It is my understanding that Curran has spent years covering this story and he even claims his reporting is what led to the investigation. That he made such a major mistake in his letter to 60 Minutes is stunning and should call into question all of his reporting in this case.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Eddie Curran Fires Spitballs at 60 Minutes
Eddie Curran is in a fightin' mood. But is this war of aggression from the erstwhile Mobile Press-Register reporter getting him anywhere? Doesn't look like it.
Not content to throw rhetorical bolo punches at Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson and Harper's legal-affairs contributor Scott Horton, Curran now takes aim at 60 Minutes. And we're not talking about a private missive to the folks responsible for the recent story on the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
No, our guy Eddie apparently has disseminated his letter to a number of right-wing blogs. It can be found at several sites, including Granddaddy Long Legs here. Curran's letter also appears at the Web site of the Alabama Republican Party.
Most mainstream reporters I've know in my almost 30 years in journalism would be horrified to see something they had written touted on a political party's Web site. But I've got to give Curran credit: He's given up all pretense of being an objective reporter.
The fellow who is credited with breaking the Siegelman story and sparking the investigation that led to the former governor's conviction seems perfectly content to be a blatant advocate. But for what is he advocating? Let's take a look at his letter to 60 Minutes and see if we can figure that out.
Curran contends that reporter Scott Pelley and producers David Gelber and Joel Blach bungled the Siegelman story. The primary charge is that statements made by Siegelman attorney Doug Jones were false.
This has to do with Jones' statements about the testimony of former Siegelman aide Nick Bailey. According to the show's transcript, Bailey testified that Siegelman walked out of a meeting with former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy holding a check for $250,000.
But Jones says: "They got a copy of the check. And the check was cut days after that meeting. There was no way possible for Siegelman to have walked out of that meeting with a check in his hand."
Curran says Jones did not represent Siegelman during the 2006 trial and heaps criticism on 60 Minutes for using Jones as a source. Also, Curran says, Jones had it wrong:
"Jones was actually correct when telling your wide-eyed host Pelley that the check was dated after the meeting. However, it was given to Siegelman at a later meeting. Neither prosecutors not witnesses at trial, Bailey included, said the check was given by Scrushy to Siegelman at the first meeting."
Now Curran covered the trial, and I did not. But let's take a closer look at Curran's allegations.
Throughout his letter, Curran admonishes 60 Minutes for not presenting corroborating evidence to support statements made by Jill Simpson. But what kind of corroborating evidence does he present to support his claim that Doug Jones' statement was false? Zip.
Of course, Curran couldn't pull evidence from the trial transcript because one still does not exist. But he could have quoted a relevant passage from one of his own stories. He does not.
The Mobile Press-Register's coverage of the Siegelman trial does not appear to be available on the Web, so I have not been able to check Curran's stories. But I have checked coverage from The Birmingham News. And that revealed something interesting.
In a story written by Kim Chandler and titled "Former aide says he OK'd phony invoices" (Birmingham News, March 5, 2006), we find this passage:
------------------------------
Bailey also admitted his initial recollections to a grand jury were incorrect. He said that, after meeting with Scrushy in 1999, Siegelman showed him a check for $250,000 signed by Scrushy. On the date Bailey recalled, the check hadn't been written, and the check was from a Maryland land company, not signed by Scrushy.
------------------------------
Unless I've lost my ability to comprehend the English language, that passage backs Jones' statement, almost to the letter. The Birmingham News wrote stories about Bailey's testimony on May 3, 4, 5, and 6 of 2006. I find no mention of a second meeting where Siegelman was presented a check.
Perhaps Curran will unearth some "corroborating evidence," maybe one of his own stories, to support his claim that Doug Jones didn't know what he was talking about. But so far, I see no proof that Jones got anything wrong.
Keep in mind that The Birmingham News and reporter Kim Chandler could hardly be described as "Siegelman friendly." But what else do we learn from Ms. Chandler's stories, items Eddie Curran neglects to mention in his letter to 60 Minutes?
From "Siegelman lawyers assail credibility of prosecution witness" (May 4, 2006), we have this:
--------------------------------
Defense lawyers showed that Bailey's initial recollection to prosecutors about the meeting between Scrushy and Siegelman had to be false. Bailey said that after the meeting, Siegelman showed him a check Scrushy had given him, but the check was dated later. Bailey admitted he wasn't sure when the meeting occurred.
-------------------------------
From "Former aide says he OK'd phony invoices" (May 5, 2006), we have this:
-------------------------------
Earlier in the week, Bailey testified that Scrushy made campaign contributions to get a seat on the state Certificate of Need Review Board. But under cross-examination by Scrushy lawyer Art Leach, Bailey said he was never in the room when his boss met with Scrushy.
And this:
McDonald set out testimony that Bailey had racked up thousands in debts trading stocks on credit while was a member of Siegelman's cabinet. McDonald said the debts totaled $250,000.
-------------------------------
And from "Bailey claims lobbyist made clear demand" (May 6, 2006), we get details about Bailey's interactions with HealthSouth lobbyist Eric Hanson. The story says Bailey testified that it would be normal for a governor to hit up CEOs such as Scrushy for large donations at campaign time, and it would be normal for a lobbyist such as Hanson to try to help his client when talking to a member of the governor's staff. Then we have this:
However, Bailey acknowledged that Hanson did not tell him the money wouldn't come unless the administration made the appointment. "He didn't threaten me, no," Bailey said.
------------------------------
We get none of this information in Curran's letter to 60 Minutes. Wonder why that is.
Not content to throw rhetorical bolo punches at Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson and Harper's legal-affairs contributor Scott Horton, Curran now takes aim at 60 Minutes. And we're not talking about a private missive to the folks responsible for the recent story on the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
No, our guy Eddie apparently has disseminated his letter to a number of right-wing blogs. It can be found at several sites, including Granddaddy Long Legs here. Curran's letter also appears at the Web site of the Alabama Republican Party.
Most mainstream reporters I've know in my almost 30 years in journalism would be horrified to see something they had written touted on a political party's Web site. But I've got to give Curran credit: He's given up all pretense of being an objective reporter.
The fellow who is credited with breaking the Siegelman story and sparking the investigation that led to the former governor's conviction seems perfectly content to be a blatant advocate. But for what is he advocating? Let's take a look at his letter to 60 Minutes and see if we can figure that out.
Curran contends that reporter Scott Pelley and producers David Gelber and Joel Blach bungled the Siegelman story. The primary charge is that statements made by Siegelman attorney Doug Jones were false.
This has to do with Jones' statements about the testimony of former Siegelman aide Nick Bailey. According to the show's transcript, Bailey testified that Siegelman walked out of a meeting with former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy holding a check for $250,000.
But Jones says: "They got a copy of the check. And the check was cut days after that meeting. There was no way possible for Siegelman to have walked out of that meeting with a check in his hand."
Curran says Jones did not represent Siegelman during the 2006 trial and heaps criticism on 60 Minutes for using Jones as a source. Also, Curran says, Jones had it wrong:
"Jones was actually correct when telling your wide-eyed host Pelley that the check was dated after the meeting. However, it was given to Siegelman at a later meeting. Neither prosecutors not witnesses at trial, Bailey included, said the check was given by Scrushy to Siegelman at the first meeting."
Now Curran covered the trial, and I did not. But let's take a closer look at Curran's allegations.
Throughout his letter, Curran admonishes 60 Minutes for not presenting corroborating evidence to support statements made by Jill Simpson. But what kind of corroborating evidence does he present to support his claim that Doug Jones' statement was false? Zip.
Of course, Curran couldn't pull evidence from the trial transcript because one still does not exist. But he could have quoted a relevant passage from one of his own stories. He does not.
The Mobile Press-Register's coverage of the Siegelman trial does not appear to be available on the Web, so I have not been able to check Curran's stories. But I have checked coverage from The Birmingham News. And that revealed something interesting.
In a story written by Kim Chandler and titled "Former aide says he OK'd phony invoices" (Birmingham News, March 5, 2006), we find this passage:
------------------------------
Bailey also admitted his initial recollections to a grand jury were incorrect. He said that, after meeting with Scrushy in 1999, Siegelman showed him a check for $250,000 signed by Scrushy. On the date Bailey recalled, the check hadn't been written, and the check was from a Maryland land company, not signed by Scrushy.
------------------------------
Unless I've lost my ability to comprehend the English language, that passage backs Jones' statement, almost to the letter. The Birmingham News wrote stories about Bailey's testimony on May 3, 4, 5, and 6 of 2006. I find no mention of a second meeting where Siegelman was presented a check.
Perhaps Curran will unearth some "corroborating evidence," maybe one of his own stories, to support his claim that Doug Jones didn't know what he was talking about. But so far, I see no proof that Jones got anything wrong.
Keep in mind that The Birmingham News and reporter Kim Chandler could hardly be described as "Siegelman friendly." But what else do we learn from Ms. Chandler's stories, items Eddie Curran neglects to mention in his letter to 60 Minutes?
From "Siegelman lawyers assail credibility of prosecution witness" (May 4, 2006), we have this:
--------------------------------
Defense lawyers showed that Bailey's initial recollection to prosecutors about the meeting between Scrushy and Siegelman had to be false. Bailey said that after the meeting, Siegelman showed him a check Scrushy had given him, but the check was dated later. Bailey admitted he wasn't sure when the meeting occurred.
-------------------------------
From "Former aide says he OK'd phony invoices" (May 5, 2006), we have this:
-------------------------------
Earlier in the week, Bailey testified that Scrushy made campaign contributions to get a seat on the state Certificate of Need Review Board. But under cross-examination by Scrushy lawyer Art Leach, Bailey said he was never in the room when his boss met with Scrushy.
And this:
McDonald set out testimony that Bailey had racked up thousands in debts trading stocks on credit while was a member of Siegelman's cabinet. McDonald said the debts totaled $250,000.
-------------------------------
And from "Bailey claims lobbyist made clear demand" (May 6, 2006), we get details about Bailey's interactions with HealthSouth lobbyist Eric Hanson. The story says Bailey testified that it would be normal for a governor to hit up CEOs such as Scrushy for large donations at campaign time, and it would be normal for a lobbyist such as Hanson to try to help his client when talking to a member of the governor's staff. Then we have this:
However, Bailey acknowledged that Hanson did not tell him the money wouldn't come unless the administration made the appointment. "He didn't threaten me, no," Bailey said.
------------------------------
We get none of this information in Curran's letter to 60 Minutes. Wonder why that is.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Riley, Abramoff, and Presidential Politics
Some much needed light is shining on Alabama Governor Bob Riley and his ties to disgraced Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff. For that, we can thank Sam Stein of The Huffington Post.
Stein's work also should raise serious questions about Republican presidential nominee John McCain.
Huffington Post reported last week that in the summer of 2006 McCain hid an e-mail that showed Riley's ties to the Abramoff influence-peddling scandal. McCain kept the e-mail out of his Senate Indian Affairs Committee report, and Riley was re-elected a few months later.
McCain on Monday received Riley's endorsement for president. That leads Stein to follow up with another post about McCain's actions to protect his GOP colleague.
How does McCain explain his 2006 actions regarding Riley?
At the time, McCain acknowledged that there were some public officials with Abramoff connections, but insisted that it was not his job to investigate them.
"There's strong evidence that there was significant wrongdoing, but I'm not a judge or jury," he told Meet The Press. "I will not [investigate], because I'm a chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee. This was brought to our . . . attention by some disgruntled tribal council members in a small tribe in Louisiana, and we took it as far as we thought was our responsibility, which is where the money ends up."
From here, it seems the public understands that McCain was not a prosecutor, a "judge or jury" as he puts it. But why cover up the e-mail implicating Riley? That's not his role either, is it?
Stein tells us just how far McCain went:
And yet, McCain took steps beyond merely protecting Riley from his Abramoff probe. Despite knowing that there were questions surrounding the ethical conduct of the Alabama governor, McCain actively supported his campaign. McCain's Straight Talk America PAC contributed $10,000 to Riley's reelection coffers. The Arizona senator attended Riley's inauguration and touted him as having "every potential to be a national figure."
Why take these steps? For starters, the two men do have past history. While they clashed on the topic of campaign finance reform, they served together in Congress on the Joint Armed Services Committee. And months before the 2006 campaign, they traveled together to Iraq.
There are personal ties as well. McCain's Alabama legal advisor, Matt Lembke, was a Riley confidant during his controversial 2002 race against then Gov. Don Seigelman (who has since been arrested on a highly-controversially, politically tainted, corruption charge). Troy King, meanwhile, was appointed the state's attorney general by Riley and now serves as McCain's Alabama chairman.
Stein's work also should raise serious questions about Republican presidential nominee John McCain.
Huffington Post reported last week that in the summer of 2006 McCain hid an e-mail that showed Riley's ties to the Abramoff influence-peddling scandal. McCain kept the e-mail out of his Senate Indian Affairs Committee report, and Riley was re-elected a few months later.
McCain on Monday received Riley's endorsement for president. That leads Stein to follow up with another post about McCain's actions to protect his GOP colleague.
How does McCain explain his 2006 actions regarding Riley?
At the time, McCain acknowledged that there were some public officials with Abramoff connections, but insisted that it was not his job to investigate them.
"There's strong evidence that there was significant wrongdoing, but I'm not a judge or jury," he told Meet The Press. "I will not [investigate], because I'm a chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee. This was brought to our . . . attention by some disgruntled tribal council members in a small tribe in Louisiana, and we took it as far as we thought was our responsibility, which is where the money ends up."
From here, it seems the public understands that McCain was not a prosecutor, a "judge or jury" as he puts it. But why cover up the e-mail implicating Riley? That's not his role either, is it?
Stein tells us just how far McCain went:
And yet, McCain took steps beyond merely protecting Riley from his Abramoff probe. Despite knowing that there were questions surrounding the ethical conduct of the Alabama governor, McCain actively supported his campaign. McCain's Straight Talk America PAC contributed $10,000 to Riley's reelection coffers. The Arizona senator attended Riley's inauguration and touted him as having "every potential to be a national figure."
Why take these steps? For starters, the two men do have past history. While they clashed on the topic of campaign finance reform, they served together in Congress on the Joint Armed Services Committee. And months before the 2006 campaign, they traveled together to Iraq.
There are personal ties as well. McCain's Alabama legal advisor, Matt Lembke, was a Riley confidant during his controversial 2002 race against then Gov. Don Seigelman (who has since been arrested on a highly-controversially, politically tainted, corruption charge). Troy King, meanwhile, was appointed the state's attorney general by Riley and now serves as McCain's Alabama chairman.
Those aren't the only personal ties between McCain and Riley. Dax Swatek, Riley's 2006 campaign manager, signed on as Alabama advisor to the McCain campaign before being let go when the campaign hit financial rough waters. Swatek's father is Pelham, Alabama, attorney William E. Swatek, who filed the fraudulent lawsuit against me that is at the heart of this blog.
Bill Swatek has an almost 30-year history of unethical activities in the legal profession. But Republican judges repeatedly have made unlawful rulings in his favor, and U.S. attorney Alice Martin (a Bush appointee) has taken clear steps to keep wrongdoing by Bill Swatek and his judicial buddies under wraps.
Makes you wonder about the company John McCain keeps.
Stein reports that McCain might have had his own career in mind when he took steps to protect Riley:
Around the time that McCain sat on the Abramoff email and was making donations to Riley's gubernatorial campaign (as well as other Alabama GOP officials), the governor was signing into law legislation that moved Alabama's 2008 primary from June 3 to February 5 (Super Tuesday). At the time, the move made the state - alongside South Carolina - a southern barometer for any Republican White House candidate. Since then, however, other states followed Alabama's lead, diminishing its impact. And following Riley's reelection, much talk in political circles centered on him being a viable vice presidential choice.
All told, there was a political balance in Alabama which McCain likely did not want to disturb.
"If you are fixing to run for president, you don't want to step in the own [shit] you've created," said a source close to the Riley-Abramoff-Siegelman case. "You don't want to be the guy who is known for the downfall of Bob Riley."
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Dubya: The Terrorism President
Voters in several key states go to the polls today to vote in presidential primaries. When the day is done, we are likely to have a pretty clear picture of who the Democratic nominee will be to go against the likely GOP candidate, John McCain.
But let's take a moment to consider some disturbing irony about the current occupant of the White House.
George W. Bush and his supporters probably want him to go down in history as "the terrorism president."
Here at Legal Schnauzer, we've decided that is a title Dubya richly deserves. But we suspect history will show Bush was "the terrorism president" in a much different sense than loyal Bushies might hope.
While Bush will want to be remembered as a fighter of terrorism in post-9/11 America, he is more likely to be remembered as a sponsor of terrorism. In fact, I would argue that the Bush Department of Justice is attacking America with a kind of terrorism that is far more damaging than anything the Islamic world could dream up.
And I say that as someone who is the target of state-sponsored terrorism, at this very moment, in George W. Bush's America.
First, of course, we need to consider definitions of terrorism, and that isn't easy because you can find more than 100 definitions on the Web. Some definitions require the use of violence or threats to use violence. Others require only the use, or threatened use, of force, and this force can be directed at either the victim's person or property.
I subscribe to the second category of definitions. Here is one definition, from globalsecurity.org., that I find instructive:
Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence
against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or
societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological
objectives.
Here is another definition I find useful:
Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or ideological goals.
By these definitions, I would say the Bush Justice Department is a terrorist organization. It uses unlawful force or threats in order to intimidate its perceived enemies and achieve ideological goals.
Should Don Siegelman, Paul Minor, and others be considered victims of terrorism as practiced by the Bush Justice Department? What about former Jefferson County Commissioner Gary White? What about Alabama Representative Sue Schmitz, who has been indicted on flimsy charges? And what about her legislative colleague, Todd Greeson, whose office recently was raided by federal agents?
I would argue that all of these folks are victims of terrorism. And increasingly the victims go beyond political boundaries. At one point, it seemed the Bush DOJ focused exclusively on Democrats. But White and Greeson are Republicans who made the serious mistake of getting on the wrong side of Alabama's GOP establishment.
At the risk of sounding overly dramatic, I would submit that your humble blogger is a victim of state-sponsored terrorism. I know my wife and I certainly feel like we have been under siege since our legal nightmare began in Shelby County, Alabama. Our financial resources have been decimated, and now our very home is at threat of being stolen by people in public positions.
All because I chose to use this tool we call a blog to shine a light on corruption I have witnessed in Alabama courts. The force and threats that have been directed at my wife and me have come from Republicans with close ties to BushWorld.
And a Bush appointee, U.S. attorney Alice Martin, has not only done nothing about the crimes we have witnessed, she has done her best to make sure they never see the light of day.
So what tools of the terrorism trade have been used against my wife and me? What does it feel like to be the target of state-sponsored terrorism?
An examination of those questions is coming up.
But let's take a moment to consider some disturbing irony about the current occupant of the White House.
George W. Bush and his supporters probably want him to go down in history as "the terrorism president."
Here at Legal Schnauzer, we've decided that is a title Dubya richly deserves. But we suspect history will show Bush was "the terrorism president" in a much different sense than loyal Bushies might hope.
While Bush will want to be remembered as a fighter of terrorism in post-9/11 America, he is more likely to be remembered as a sponsor of terrorism. In fact, I would argue that the Bush Department of Justice is attacking America with a kind of terrorism that is far more damaging than anything the Islamic world could dream up.
And I say that as someone who is the target of state-sponsored terrorism, at this very moment, in George W. Bush's America.
First, of course, we need to consider definitions of terrorism, and that isn't easy because you can find more than 100 definitions on the Web. Some definitions require the use of violence or threats to use violence. Others require only the use, or threatened use, of force, and this force can be directed at either the victim's person or property.
I subscribe to the second category of definitions. Here is one definition, from globalsecurity.org., that I find instructive:
Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence
against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or
societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological
objectives.
Here is another definition I find useful:
Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or ideological goals.
By these definitions, I would say the Bush Justice Department is a terrorist organization. It uses unlawful force or threats in order to intimidate its perceived enemies and achieve ideological goals.
Should Don Siegelman, Paul Minor, and others be considered victims of terrorism as practiced by the Bush Justice Department? What about former Jefferson County Commissioner Gary White? What about Alabama Representative Sue Schmitz, who has been indicted on flimsy charges? And what about her legislative colleague, Todd Greeson, whose office recently was raided by federal agents?
I would argue that all of these folks are victims of terrorism. And increasingly the victims go beyond political boundaries. At one point, it seemed the Bush DOJ focused exclusively on Democrats. But White and Greeson are Republicans who made the serious mistake of getting on the wrong side of Alabama's GOP establishment.
At the risk of sounding overly dramatic, I would submit that your humble blogger is a victim of state-sponsored terrorism. I know my wife and I certainly feel like we have been under siege since our legal nightmare began in Shelby County, Alabama. Our financial resources have been decimated, and now our very home is at threat of being stolen by people in public positions.
All because I chose to use this tool we call a blog to shine a light on corruption I have witnessed in Alabama courts. The force and threats that have been directed at my wife and me have come from Republicans with close ties to BushWorld.
And a Bush appointee, U.S. attorney Alice Martin, has not only done nothing about the crimes we have witnessed, she has done her best to make sure they never see the light of day.
So what tools of the terrorism trade have been used against my wife and me? What does it feel like to be the target of state-sponsored terrorism?
An examination of those questions is coming up.
The Forgotten Charge Against Don Siegelman
I was rereading one of my recent posts the other day, and I realized that 60 Minutes, the Alabama Republican Party, and your humble blogger all got something wrong about the Don Siegelman story.
And I, of all people, should have known better.
It started when 60 Minutes' Scott Pelley said Siegelman had been convicted of charges related to bribery. The Alabama Republican Party harrumphed and issued a statement that 60 Minutes had gotten it wrong--that Siegelman also was convicted of obstruction of justice. That prompted me to harrumph and write a post saying that obstruction of justice is a "piggyback" charge that requires the presence of another crime. Like conspiracy, it cannot stand on its own and must be found in connection with a related crime. Therefore, I said with indignation, Pelley's statement that Siegelman was convicted of "charges related to bribery" was correct.
Turns out all three of us had it wrong.
Siegelman was convicted of one count of bribery and one count of obstruction of justice. But by far, the stickiest charge against him was honest-services mail fraud. He was convicted of four counts of honest-services mail fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit honest-services mail fraud.
The final score? Five of the seven counts for which Siegelman was convicted were related to honest-services mail fraud. (In all, the former governor was convicted on seven counts and acquitted on 26 counts--not a particularly strong showing for the prosecution.)
Just how important was honest-services mail fraud in the Siegelman case? It made up roughly two-thirds of the charges against him. And yet 60 Minutes and the Alabama Republican Party never mentioned it, and yours truly completely forgot about it. Duh.
No wonder we call it the "forgotten charge." But folks who care about justice, both in general and in the Siegelman case specifically, should not forget about the forgotten charge. And I sure as heck shouldn't forget about it.
Why? Because I've been a victim of it.
I've had a number of folks ask me, "Why do you write so much about the Siegelman case on your blog? Why don't you just jump straight into your own story of corruption?"
Well, there are two main reasons for that. One, evidence clearly shows that many of the same characters who play leading roles in the Siegelman story--Alice Martin, Bob Riley, Bill Canary, Leura Canary, Dax Swatek--also have connections to my story.
The primary connector? Alabama Republican consultant Dax Swatek, whose father Bill Swatek filed the bogus lawsuit against me that started our Legal Schnauzer tale. As we've noted before, Dax Swatek has close ties to Bill Canary, who is married to Leura Canary, who started the prosecution of Siegelman and . . . well, you get the picture.
The second reason? I know what real honest-services mail fraud is all about. I've been on the receiving end of it, and I've studied it extensively. On a personal level, I can tell you it's not much fun to be the victim of honest-services mail fraud. It pretty much ruins your faith in our system of government--or at least the people who are running it.
A transcript of the Siegelman trial is not available (although his lawyers say it is on the horizon), so I can't say for sure that Don Siegelman was innocent of the mail fraud charges against him. But I strongly suspect the case was flimsy.
(Honest-services mail fraud also was a key charge in the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, and that's a key reason I have written so much about that case. I have seen that transcript, and there is no question the three defendants in the Minor case did not commit mail fraud--or bribery or any of the other crimes they were charged with. But in Karl Rove's America, all three defendants are in federal prison. That's another story that deserves 60 Minutes attention. In fact, here's an idea: Since we no longer have 60 Minutes II, let's encourage the network to start a version devoted entirely to corruption in federal courts, state courts, and the U.S. Justice Department under George W. Bush. There would be no shortage of stories to cover.)
There is nothing flimsy about the honest-services mail fraud I've seen committed by Shelby County judges J. Michael Joiner, G. Dan Reeves, and others in our Alabama state "justice system." But they are Republicans, members of the "home team" that U.S. attorney Alice Martin endeavors to protect.
If you really want to understand the Siegelman case, I encourage you to learn about honest-services mail fraud. It's the charge upon which his conviction is overwhelmingly based.
As a public service, we offer this tidy little post as a place to learn about this key charge. We call the post "Mail Fraud: A Primer."
You will find there are several benefits to reading this post. One, you can dazzle your friends with your knowledge of honest-services mail fraud. Trust me, it will make you the "life of the party" at your next outing. Two, it will help you get to the core of the Siegelman and Minor cases. And three, it will have you prepared when we show you what a real case of honest-services mail fraud looks like--and how a U.S. attorney tries her darnedest to cover it up.
And I, of all people, should have known better.
It started when 60 Minutes' Scott Pelley said Siegelman had been convicted of charges related to bribery. The Alabama Republican Party harrumphed and issued a statement that 60 Minutes had gotten it wrong--that Siegelman also was convicted of obstruction of justice. That prompted me to harrumph and write a post saying that obstruction of justice is a "piggyback" charge that requires the presence of another crime. Like conspiracy, it cannot stand on its own and must be found in connection with a related crime. Therefore, I said with indignation, Pelley's statement that Siegelman was convicted of "charges related to bribery" was correct.
Turns out all three of us had it wrong.
Siegelman was convicted of one count of bribery and one count of obstruction of justice. But by far, the stickiest charge against him was honest-services mail fraud. He was convicted of four counts of honest-services mail fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit honest-services mail fraud.
The final score? Five of the seven counts for which Siegelman was convicted were related to honest-services mail fraud. (In all, the former governor was convicted on seven counts and acquitted on 26 counts--not a particularly strong showing for the prosecution.)
Just how important was honest-services mail fraud in the Siegelman case? It made up roughly two-thirds of the charges against him. And yet 60 Minutes and the Alabama Republican Party never mentioned it, and yours truly completely forgot about it. Duh.
No wonder we call it the "forgotten charge." But folks who care about justice, both in general and in the Siegelman case specifically, should not forget about the forgotten charge. And I sure as heck shouldn't forget about it.
Why? Because I've been a victim of it.
I've had a number of folks ask me, "Why do you write so much about the Siegelman case on your blog? Why don't you just jump straight into your own story of corruption?"
Well, there are two main reasons for that. One, evidence clearly shows that many of the same characters who play leading roles in the Siegelman story--Alice Martin, Bob Riley, Bill Canary, Leura Canary, Dax Swatek--also have connections to my story.
The primary connector? Alabama Republican consultant Dax Swatek, whose father Bill Swatek filed the bogus lawsuit against me that started our Legal Schnauzer tale. As we've noted before, Dax Swatek has close ties to Bill Canary, who is married to Leura Canary, who started the prosecution of Siegelman and . . . well, you get the picture.
The second reason? I know what real honest-services mail fraud is all about. I've been on the receiving end of it, and I've studied it extensively. On a personal level, I can tell you it's not much fun to be the victim of honest-services mail fraud. It pretty much ruins your faith in our system of government--or at least the people who are running it.
A transcript of the Siegelman trial is not available (although his lawyers say it is on the horizon), so I can't say for sure that Don Siegelman was innocent of the mail fraud charges against him. But I strongly suspect the case was flimsy.
(Honest-services mail fraud also was a key charge in the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, and that's a key reason I have written so much about that case. I have seen that transcript, and there is no question the three defendants in the Minor case did not commit mail fraud--or bribery or any of the other crimes they were charged with. But in Karl Rove's America, all three defendants are in federal prison. That's another story that deserves 60 Minutes attention. In fact, here's an idea: Since we no longer have 60 Minutes II, let's encourage the network to start a version devoted entirely to corruption in federal courts, state courts, and the U.S. Justice Department under George W. Bush. There would be no shortage of stories to cover.)
There is nothing flimsy about the honest-services mail fraud I've seen committed by Shelby County judges J. Michael Joiner, G. Dan Reeves, and others in our Alabama state "justice system." But they are Republicans, members of the "home team" that U.S. attorney Alice Martin endeavors to protect.
If you really want to understand the Siegelman case, I encourage you to learn about honest-services mail fraud. It's the charge upon which his conviction is overwhelmingly based.
As a public service, we offer this tidy little post as a place to learn about this key charge. We call the post "Mail Fraud: A Primer."
You will find there are several benefits to reading this post. One, you can dazzle your friends with your knowledge of honest-services mail fraud. Trust me, it will make you the "life of the party" at your next outing. Two, it will help you get to the core of the Siegelman and Minor cases. And three, it will have you prepared when we show you what a real case of honest-services mail fraud looks like--and how a U.S. attorney tries her darnedest to cover it up.
Birmingham's Next American Idol, Part II?
We've been writing about some pretty heavy stuff lately on the justice front, so let's take a break from that. And what better way to do it than to turn our attention to music.
We've gotten a kick out of adopting Birmingham's own Taylor Hicks as the official musician of Legal Schnauzer. And we've enjoyed pointing out that our fair city has a remarkable record for turning out American Idol standouts--Hicks, Ruben Studdard, Bo Bice, and Diana DeGarmo.
A few weeks back, we posted about a fellow we think has a shot at becoming one of the next Birmingham products to make a splash on Idol. His name is Sam Hunt, and he is best known in these parts as the quarterback for the UAB Blazers football team. But we noted that The Birmingham News had written of Hunt's musical talent, and several of his teammates had encouraged him to try out for Idol.
Hunt completed his college football eligibility last fall, so maybe he'll have time to give the tryouts a shot now. He was a fifth-year senior in 2007, so I'm guessing that would make him about 24 years old when the 2009 Idol tryouts come around.
Does Sam Hunt have what it takes to make a run at America's favorite talent contest? I think he does. (Although, as a big UAB football fan, I might not be the most objective guy around.) But now you can decide for yourself.
A couple of videos of Sam performing are on YouTube. The first is the feature that aired at halftime of a televised UAB game last fall. Here it is:
The second video is from Hunt's performance with the UAB Gospel Choir. It's a moving tribute to the victims of the shooting at Virginia Tech. I'd long heard that director Kevin Turner consistently turns out top-notch choirs, and this clip proves it. The video quality is not the greatest, but it makes me wish I had been at the concert.
Hunt has another public performance on the immediate horizon. He will sing tomorrow night (March 5) at halftime of the Tulsa-UAB basketball game at Bartow Arena in Birmingham. Perhaps video of that performance will show up on the Web. If so, we'll keep Legal Schnauzer readers informed.
We've gotten a kick out of adopting Birmingham's own Taylor Hicks as the official musician of Legal Schnauzer. And we've enjoyed pointing out that our fair city has a remarkable record for turning out American Idol standouts--Hicks, Ruben Studdard, Bo Bice, and Diana DeGarmo.
A few weeks back, we posted about a fellow we think has a shot at becoming one of the next Birmingham products to make a splash on Idol. His name is Sam Hunt, and he is best known in these parts as the quarterback for the UAB Blazers football team. But we noted that The Birmingham News had written of Hunt's musical talent, and several of his teammates had encouraged him to try out for Idol.
Hunt completed his college football eligibility last fall, so maybe he'll have time to give the tryouts a shot now. He was a fifth-year senior in 2007, so I'm guessing that would make him about 24 years old when the 2009 Idol tryouts come around.
Does Sam Hunt have what it takes to make a run at America's favorite talent contest? I think he does. (Although, as a big UAB football fan, I might not be the most objective guy around.) But now you can decide for yourself.
A couple of videos of Sam performing are on YouTube. The first is the feature that aired at halftime of a televised UAB game last fall. Here it is:
The second video is from Hunt's performance with the UAB Gospel Choir. It's a moving tribute to the victims of the shooting at Virginia Tech. I'd long heard that director Kevin Turner consistently turns out top-notch choirs, and this clip proves it. The video quality is not the greatest, but it makes me wish I had been at the concert.
Hunt has another public performance on the immediate horizon. He will sing tomorrow night (March 5) at halftime of the Tulsa-UAB basketball game at Bartow Arena in Birmingham. Perhaps video of that performance will show up on the Web. If so, we'll keep Legal Schnauzer readers informed.
Monday, March 3, 2008
How Low is Too Low for Karl Rove?
Speaking of newly discovered blogs (at least to me), we have WriteChic, a most welcome addition to the Alabama blogosphere.
WriteChic is written by Melissa King, who has worked in journalism and education. She lived in Arizona before calling Alabama home.
In a recent post, WriteChic notes that Karl Rove has actually suggested there is such a thing as playing too dirty in politics. How low do you have to go in order to reach that level? Rove suggests that Republicans stoop too low when they refer to Barack Obama by his middle name--Hussein.
WriteChic points out numerous incongruities in Rove's statement. For one, he says that the use of Hussein does not help John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee for president. But this is the same Rove who pushed all kinds of ugly rumors about McCain in 2000.
This also is the same Rove who apparently thinks it is fine to try to get pictures of a political opponent in a compromising position. We recently learned that from 60 Minutes' report on the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
But use someone's middle name? Gosh, that's hitting below the belt.
WriteChic is written by Melissa King, who has worked in journalism and education. She lived in Arizona before calling Alabama home.
In a recent post, WriteChic notes that Karl Rove has actually suggested there is such a thing as playing too dirty in politics. How low do you have to go in order to reach that level? Rove suggests that Republicans stoop too low when they refer to Barack Obama by his middle name--Hussein.
WriteChic points out numerous incongruities in Rove's statement. For one, he says that the use of Hussein does not help John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee for president. But this is the same Rove who pushed all kinds of ugly rumors about McCain in 2000.
This also is the same Rove who apparently thinks it is fine to try to get pictures of a political opponent in a compromising position. We recently learned that from 60 Minutes' report on the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
But use someone's middle name? Gosh, that's hitting below the belt.
How Republicans Handle Bad News
I recently discovered an interesting blog called Wake Up Call Missouri, and it provides insight into how Republicans might behave in the wake of the 60 Minutes report on the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. In fact, the blog has produced several recent posts on the Siegelman case.
Wake Up Call Missouri is written by Rick Fischer, an attorney from O'Fallon, Missouri, which is near St. Louis. I have several reasons for liking Wake Up Call Missouri. One, I grew up in Missouri and still keep up with activities in the Show-Me State. Two, I'm a long-as-I-can-remember St. Louis Cardinals fan, and I suspect Mr. Fischer is too. (It's pretty much a requirement when you live in the St. Louis area.) Three, Mr. Fischer was kind enough to reference Legal Schnauzer and even use the photo of our cover schnauzer, Gumpie Poo, that manly fellow from Down Under, Queensland, Australia (home of the fine folks at Valleyview Dogs).
But most importantly, Mr. Fischer provides some fascinating insight into the way Republicans tend to act during times of crisis. Morton Blackwell, a Virginia-based consultant, specializes in teaching GOPers how to "handle negative information." (Hopefully, he will be doing a heckuva business in the coming weeks and months.)
Blackwell's clients include Ralph Reed, Jeff Gannon, two Miss Americas, and yes, our favorite Republican of all, Karl Rove.
Wake Up Call Missouri provides links to a couple of stories about Blackwell and his clients. One story is from the Springfield (Mo.) News-Leader and the other is from Salon. Very good reading.
Blackwell is famed for his "40 Laws of Public Policy." I wonder if any of them involve "telling the truth" and "doing the right thing to begin with." Somehow I doubt it.
Wake Up Call Missouri is written by Rick Fischer, an attorney from O'Fallon, Missouri, which is near St. Louis. I have several reasons for liking Wake Up Call Missouri. One, I grew up in Missouri and still keep up with activities in the Show-Me State. Two, I'm a long-as-I-can-remember St. Louis Cardinals fan, and I suspect Mr. Fischer is too. (It's pretty much a requirement when you live in the St. Louis area.) Three, Mr. Fischer was kind enough to reference Legal Schnauzer and even use the photo of our cover schnauzer, Gumpie Poo, that manly fellow from Down Under, Queensland, Australia (home of the fine folks at Valleyview Dogs).
But most importantly, Mr. Fischer provides some fascinating insight into the way Republicans tend to act during times of crisis. Morton Blackwell, a Virginia-based consultant, specializes in teaching GOPers how to "handle negative information." (Hopefully, he will be doing a heckuva business in the coming weeks and months.)
Blackwell's clients include Ralph Reed, Jeff Gannon, two Miss Americas, and yes, our favorite Republican of all, Karl Rove.
Wake Up Call Missouri provides links to a couple of stories about Blackwell and his clients. One story is from the Springfield (Mo.) News-Leader and the other is from Salon. Very good reading.
Blackwell is famed for his "40 Laws of Public Policy." I wonder if any of them involve "telling the truth" and "doing the right thing to begin with." Somehow I doubt it.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
On Siegelman, 60 Minutes, and History
Schnauzer thoughts on a historic week . . .
Update on Siegelman Court Reporter
A source tells me that Jimmy Dickens, the original court reporter on the Don Siegelman trial, died of cancer. We have wondered in a couple of posts about the cause of death for Mr. Dickens, and this seems to provide the answer.
Evidently Mr. Dickens had been stricken with cancer for some time, which makes you wonder why Judge Mark Fuller didn't have a backup plan in place that would have prevented the current delay with the trial transcript.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, noted that the transcript delay is one of four reasons MSNBC's Dan Abrams cited when he called for Siegelman's release from prison pending appeal. Horton also said court reporters have told him that there is no excuse for the kind of delay that has occurred in the Siegelman case:
The appeal is delayed because the court has yet to produce a trial transcript even though the trial was held more than a year and a half ago. (Court reporters I have interviewed have a consistent analysis of this: it’s a sham. Those transcripts could have been completed by any competent court reporter in a matter of a couple of weeks. This was a conscious effort to deprive Siegelman of an appeal, involving Judge Fuller.)
Robert A. Kezelis, of Capitol Hill Blue, also shined light on the matter, noting that modern technology should make production of a transcript relatively simple, even in circumstances such as those in the Siegelman case:
With today's modern technology, the death of a court reporter makes no difference. The computer readout of the court reporter's machine is easily downloaded to any PC and the spell-checking and name correction can be done in a day. Perhaps two. Not months. Not many months.
Having dated a sweet, smart and really cute former federal court court reporter, trust me. They have NO LACK of technology, software, or ability to create a transcript at will. Ah, that is what is missing - "the will".
History in the Making?
This time a week ago many of us were gearing up for the 60 Minutes story on Don Siegelman. But I, and perhaps many other viewers, did not fully grasp the historic nature of the broadcast.
I am not a lawyer--although that doesn't keep me from playing one on the Web--and I certainly am not a historian. But I have a feeling no major U.S. news organization ever has reported on a story quite like the Siegelman case before. Perhaps that is because it's hard to remember the issue of politically motivated prosecutions ever being raised in the United States before.
Two of the most cherished concepts upon which are country is built are "freedom" and "the rule of law." And yet we have powerful evidence that our current Justice Department is abusing the rule of law in order to rob innocent people of their freedom.
If someone had told me 10 years ago that this could happen in the United States, I would have said they were daffy. Perhaps that is why the 60 Minutes story seems to have hit such a nerve with the viewing public. The story's central premise: What once was unthinkable can actually happen in the United States.
As a followup to the 60 Minutes piece, I would love to see a panel of historians discuss the unfolding Justice Department scandal and provide some historical context. Has our nation ever experienced anything remotely like this before? What previous government scandal would come closest to matching it? Has there been a similar scandal on the international stage? And from a press standpoint, has there ever been a story quite like this one in American history?
Setting a Trap for "Turd Blossom"
Perhaps the most delicious notion to come out of the past week is the possibility that Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson and 60 Minutes essentially have set a trap that might snare Karl "Turd Blossom" Rove in a painful way.
Scott Horton reports that Mike Hubbard, chair of the Alabama Republican Party, is well aware of the trap. In fact, that awareness almost certainly is behind Hubbard's demand that CBS present corroborating evidence for its Siegelman story or run a retraction. Without knowing what evidence is lined up against him, Rove doesn't know how to tailor his lies to get out of the corner he is in. And Mike Hubbard appears to be more interested in protecting Karl Rove than he does seeing that justice is done. Writes Horton:
Karl Rove is desperate to know exactly what evidence Simpson and CBS have before he is compelled to give sworn testimony. Why? Armed with this, he hopes to walk through the minefield ahead of him, lying and avoiding being caught. It’s about that simple.
I absolutely believe that CBS should put its corroborating data on the table. After Karl Rove has given sworn testimony about this affair.
More Republicans Speak Up
Another prominent Republican has raised serious questions about the Siegelman case. This time it is Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant secretary of the treasury under Ronald Reagan and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal.
Conservative credentials don't come much stronger than those. But Roberts heaps criticism upon the prosecution, calling it a "frame-up" that is "crystal clear" and "blatant." Roberts has particular scorn for prosecutor Stephen Feaga:
Federal prosecutors claimed that Scrushy’s charitable contribution was a bribe to Siegelman in exchange for being appointed to the Certificate of Need board. In the words of federal prosecutor Stephen Feaga, the contribution was "given in exchange for a promise for an official act."
Feaga’s statement is absolute nonsense. It is well known that Scrushy had served on the board for years, felt he had done his duty, and wanted off the board. It was Siegelman who convinced Scrushy to remain on the board. Moreover, Scrushy gave no money to Siegelman. The money went to a charitable foundation.
As a large number of attorneys have pointed out, every US president appoints his ambassadors and cabinet members from people who have donated to his campaign. Under the reasoning applied in the Siegelman case, every president, cabinet member and ambassador should be in federal prison.
How in the world did a jury convict two men of a non-crime?
Cynthia Tucker Weighs In
Cynthia Tucker, Pulitzer-Prize winning columnist for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, weighs in with a balanced view of the Siegelman case. On the one hand, Tucker writes:
The prosecution's case centered around one disputed point: When Siegelman took out a loan to fund the advocacy group, was he personally on the hook to repay the money? Prosecutors said he was, making the $500,000 contribution of personal benefit to Siegelman -- i.e., a bribe. Defense attorneys argued that Siegelman saw no personal benefit from the contribution; they also pointed out that Scrushy had served on the same board under previous governors.
Either way, there's no confusing Siegelman's little deal with textbook good government. It was a tawdry affair, and no governor has any business engaging in such acts. Advocates of stricter ethical standards -- like me -- harrumph over such transactions with regularity. But they are, nevertheless, pretty common, rarely inspiring much beyond raised eyebrows. It is highly unusual for the Justice Department to target public officials who have not personally benefited from their connections with contributors.
On the other hand, Tucker writes:
There are some fundamental premises of American democracy that we take for granted. Among them is this: Political rivals who threaten the status quo are imprisoned in Russia, in Malaysia, in Zimbabwe, but not in the United States. No president or prosecutor ought to be allowed to use his office to go after political enemies.
Right-Wing Bloggers in a Lather
The 60 Minutes Siegelman story has stirred up folks on the right side of the blogosphere. It's as if they all got together and came up with the same talking points. The Gateway Pundit blog has a pretty good wrapup of right-wing response here.
Probably the most common theme among right-wing bloggers is that the 60 Minutes Siegelman story is a gaffe on par with the Dan Rather story about President George W. Bush's military service. A number of righty bloggers say that, coming on the heals of the Rather story, the Siegelman piece might be the end of 60 Minutes.
Of course, there is a slight problem with this line of thinking. No one has ever proven that Rather had the Bush story wrong. And no one has proven that the documents CBS used were inauthentic. Rather hopes to prove he had it right, and therefore was wrongfully dismissed, in a lawsuit that is pending against CBS.
Another common component of the right-wing response is Mobile Press-Register reporter Eddie Curran, who is credited with breaking the Siegelman story and sparking the federal investigation. Curran has written a lengthy missive to 60 Minutes, claiming it got major chunks of the story wrong. The Curran letter is showing up on numerous right-leaning blogs.
Even Powerline, one of the more respectable right-wing blogs, touts the Curran letter. Writing at Huffington Post, Larisa Alexandrovna has a splendid reply to the Powerline post. My favorite line is this:
Why go on an attack against 60 Minutes (see my latest post on smear jobs regarding this story) when you yourself have implied that you have no clue what you are talking about?
Your open letter, sadly, can be seen only in one of two ways: 1). you are either unable or uninterested in obtaining facts before you go into political Rambo mode; 2). or you are simply firmly lodged inside Karl Rove's colon. Which is it?
The authors of Powerline are connected with the Claremont Institute, a right-wing outfit. That might explain their myopia on the subject of the Bush Justice Department. Alexandrovna gives them their due and then provides plenty of information that they seem to be lacking.
You seem to be well respected among your readers and lawyers of various political affiliations. So I am willing to give you the benefit that you are indeed simply misinformed. I will, however, allow readers to decide for themselves which genre you fall into by addressing your "open letter" with my own. You see, you are not the first to jump on this band-wagon and sadly, likely not to be the last. You do, however, seem to be the most reasonable and open to new information, which is something I am more than happy to provide.
Alexandrovna chides the Powerliners for relying on Mobile Press-Register reporter Eddie Curran and his recent letter to 60 Minutes.
You then go on to cite a reporter who is seen by most people with whom I have spoken in Alabama (Republicans and Democrats alike) as a shill:
"Reading about the underlying controversy, I found the name of Eddie Curran. Curran is the Mobile Press-Register reporter whose stories played a role in initiating the investigation of Siegelman. Curran is on leave from the Press-Register writing a book on Siegelman's "administration, the trial, and the aftermath, including the 60 Minutes show on Siegelman." Curran has now written a letter to 60 Minutes."
There is a small problem with regard to Curran. You see, he built his entire reputation on an investigation into Siegelman (ironically, the prosecution did not use much of his evidence) and is alleged by many people in Alabama to have worked closely with the prosecution (a journalistic no-no).
He took an unpaid leave from the Mobile Press Register to pen a book on his exploits and now his entire reputation is on the line. He wrote a hit piece (read for yourself) against Scott Horton of Harper's too. Why do you suppose this man is so upset, so seething with hate when it comes to Horton?
Could it be that if Horton (and me, CBS, and Time) are right, then poor Eddie loses his reputation and book deal? He made his own bed, and he should now get used to it. I will say, however, that while I can understand Curran's feelings of frustration, I cannot condone him attempting to smear others in order to keep his pen in the business. Ask Eddie if his entire career depends on him being right on the Siegelman allegations.
Alexandrovna finishes by presenting 21 questions that should be asked, and answered, about the Siegelman case. It's good stuff. By the way, we have a detailed analysis of Eddie Curran's letter to 60 Minutes coming up:
So I ask that instead of attacking CBS, you consider the questions I want answered and perhaps, because you are an American first--before your politics--you will also ask these questions and demand answers too:
1. Was Mr. Canary (a consultant for Bob Riley, Don Siegelman's opponent during the 2002 election) involved in a conversation on November 18, 2002 in which he said that "his girls" (allegedly in reference to his wife, US Attorney Leura Canary and their friend, US Attorney Alice Martin) would "take care of" Mr. Siegelman? Who else was on that call? Is it appropriate for a US Attorney to be investigating the opponent of her husband's client? Is that not a conflict of interest?
2. Mrs. Canary claims to have recused herself from the Siegelman case. Where is the evidence of this from the DOJ?
3. Did Mr. Canary and Mr. Rove discuss how to "take care" of Mr. Siegelman at any point while Mr. Rove was working at the White House?
3. Did Mr. Rove meet with operatives for Bob Riley (Siegelman's opponent during the 2002 election) and discuss how to "take care" of Mr. Siegelman? Did Mr. Rove have these alleged meetings on street corners in DC, cafes, and at lobbying firms on K street throughout 2002 and later?
4. Did Mr. Rove ask William Pryor to seal the 2002 ballots before Siegelman's requested hand-recount could happen? Mr. Pryor's campaign for Alabama state Attorney General was run by Karl Rove in 1998. In 2002, Pryor sealed the ballots of the Riley-Siegelman campaign after a late-night glitch suddenly made Riley the winner. The following April, Pryor was installed on a recess appointment to the 11 Circuit Court of Appeals.
5. Why did Pryor seal those ballots?
6. Did Mr. Rove suggest that Mr. Pryor be appointed to the 11th Circuit? What were Mr. Pryor's qualifications and why was he installed on a recess appointment? Was he being rewarded for sealing the ballots.
7. Did Mr. Rove have any relationship with Mark Fuller, the judge who was appointed by President Bush and later, somehow, got the Siegelman case?
8. Did Mr. Canary ever say that Judge Fuller "would hang Siegelman," before Fuller had gotten the case? How about after?
9. Where is the court transcript of the trial, which is needed for Siegelman to file his appeal? It has been 30 months, already. How long does a court transcript take?
10. Why did Judge Fuller not let Siegelman report after he was indicted, instead having him shackled and brought in like a violent offender? The charges, after all, were bribery.
11. Why is Siegelman not allowed to be out of prison while he appeals his case? What is the reason for this?
12. Did Mr. Rove discuss the Siegelman case in 2002 or at any point after with then chief of the department's Office of Public Integrity at the DOJ, Noel Hillman? If so, what was the subjects of that/those discussion(s)?
13. Did Mr. Hillman's appointment to a federal judgeship have anything to do with the Siegelman case?
14. Did Mr. Hillman bury any evidence in the Jack Abramoff case connecting Mr. Rove and Jack Abramoff and/or Bob Riley and Jack Abramoff?
15. Michael Scanlon, the team-Abramoff member who bribed Republican members of Congress and laundered money for the GOP, was both an employee of indicted House Majority Leader, Tom Delay (R-TX) and then-Congressman Bob Riley (R-AL), who later went on to become Siegelman's opponent. He also did work for Congressman Bob Ney (R-OH).
Delay was indicted on money laundering charges and was forced to resign from Congress. Ney plead guilty to bribery and corruption and is now serving time in prison. The other two members of Congress involved with Scanlon - disgraced Montana Congressman Conrad Burns, and scandal-ridden California Congressman John Do0little - are or have been under investigation. How then is it possible that Bob Riley - Scanlon's one-time boss - was the only one of Scanlon's associates to never have been investigated for his ties to both Scanlon and Abramoff?
16. Did Mr. Rove have any contact with Hillman regarding Bob Riley, Tom Delay, Conrad Burns, and John Doolittle and their ties to Abramoff and Scanlon?
17. Did the US prosecutors on Siegelman's case threaten the brother of witness Nick Bailey if Bailey did not cooperate with the prosecution?
18. Why was the other prosecution witness in the Siegelman case - Lanny Young - seen as credible with regard to Siegelman, but dismissed as not credible when he also implicated Judge William Pryor and Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) in the same types of allegations? If he gets 2 of the 3 wrong, how is he still credible? Or is it that Jeff Sessions were not prosecuted because they are Republicans, while Siegelman is a Democrat?
19. Why won't the DOJ provide any documents to Congress regarding the Siegelman case or other selective prosecution cases?
20. And again, I ask, why won't Karl Rove testify under oath if he has nothing to hide?
21. Why did Judge Fuller not investigate the jury-tampering issues when they were brought to his attention?
Deconstructing Eddie Curran, Part II
After running one episode of "Eddie Curran Raw," Montgomery Independent editor Bob Martin evidently decided it would be a good idea to put some kind of filter on the Mobile Press-Register's acclaimed attack dog.
That filter turns out to be Harper's legal-affairs contributor Scott Horton, the target in part two of Curran's two-part op-ed piece on the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
"This piece, Part II of Curran's writings, is so overly critical of Mr. Horton, we have asked Mr. Horton to respond, which he has done," Martin writes in an editor's note. "His response is in all capital letters to distinguish from Eddie Curran's words. Most quotes are in italic."
Reading this piece reminds me of the Joe Frazier-Muhammad Ali bouts of the 1970s. Curran is like Frazier, snorting and snarling and firing left hooks and wild haymakers at every turn. Horton is like Ali, deftly dancing around the ring, firing jabs, and expertly fending off his attacker. At times, you can almost hear Horton (as Ali), saying, "Is that all you've got?"
That would be a good question for Curran. Another would be, "What are you trying to accomplish here?"
My Frazier-Ali analogy only goes so far. Those bouts were all close. Curran vs. Horton proves to be a one-sided decision for Horton. You get the feeling Horton could have landed a knockout blow at any point. But he lets it go the distance, curious to see what Curran will try next--and content to win handily on the judges' cards.
The punch that Curran throws repeatedly might be called the "Mark Fuller Special." Swinging from the heels, Curran lets it fly time after time, attacking Horton's accounts of U.S. Judge Mark Fuller and his curious legal/business dealings.
But Curran never comes close to landing his big blow. Perhaps that's because he violates one of the first laws of boxing: Know your opponent.
Curran contends that Horton says Fuller received government contracts as a result of bribes or payoffs. But, as Horton correctly states, that is not the point of his pieces. Rather, Horton's work shows, time after time, that Fuller does not come close to meeting the "appearance of impartiality" requirement of federal law, mainly because a significant chunk of his income, way beyond what he earns as a judge, is derived from government contracts--and the U.S. government is one of the party's in the Siegelman case.
Horton particularly draws Curran's ire with this passage from a January 8, 2008, post: "It seems that Fuller's business runs almost entirely from shadowy contracts awarded by the U.S. Government, prominently including the Department of Justice--that's right, the highly politicized agency which was prosecuting the Siegelman case in his court. And many of the other contracts came from the Department of Defense."
Curran goes into a swinging frenzy at this. "Can Horton or Harper's identify a single contract, such as through production of a single piece of paper, showing that either Doss Aviation or Doss of Alabama has even on contract . . . with the Department of Justice?"
You can almost hear Horton shrugging his shoulders as if to say, "Dude, I've already done that--and you would know it if you had bothered to read my work closely."
First, Curran alleges that Horton's piece says Doss' contracts are "primarily" with the Justice Department. Actually, the story says the contracts are "prominently" with Justice. Big difference.
And Horton cites two documents--a defense counsel's motion for recusal and an article in the Enterprise Ledger--that support his passages about Doss' contracts with the Justice Department. The Enterprise newspaper article specifically states that FBI agents are among the professionals all over the world who wear products made by a Doss company.
Curran is so intent on defending Fuller's honor that you would think they were twin brothers. At one point, Curran quotes former Alabama Attorney General Bill Baxley as saying, "Judge Fuller is one of the fairest judges I have ever known." Gee, this is a big surprise, and Martin gets to the point with this editor's note: "I know many lawyers, and it is rare that you find one who will not speak with lavish praise in public about a judge before whom he regularly practices."
In fact, as Jill Simpson stated in her Congressional testimony, Alabama lawyers can get in deep doo-doo for questioning the integrity of a judge--no matter how corrupt said judge might be. (Rule 8.2, Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct.)
Perhaps Curran should have consulted David G. Bronner, head of the Retirement Systems of Alabama (RSA) and widely considered one of the sharpest minds in the state. In fact, Curran wouldn't have needed to consult Bronner. The RSA chief has made his feelings about Fuller very clear--in print--saying that Fuller had tried to help a buddy "rip off" RSA.
Curran also might have wanted to consult Missouri attorney Paul Benton Weeks, who after extensive investigation of Fuller's activities, filed an affidavit with the Justice Department outlining actions by Fuller that are certainly improper and probably criminal. Weeks is a graduate of the University of Missouri and the University of Virginia School of Law, and his affidavit can be read here.
Curran's piece makes no mention of Weeks' insights. Perhaps he should contact the Missouri attorney to get information from someone who really knows what Mark Fuller is all about.
If I were Weeks though, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Curran's call. Our intrepid reporter evidently won't countenance any less-than-flattering words about Judge Fuller. Curran really gets riled when he notes Horton's criticism of Fuller's memorandum opinion explaining his decision to deny Siegelman bail pending appeal.
Horton said Fuller's opinion was "farcical" and reflected the work of a "third-rate legal mind." Horton was absolutely right; in fact, he was being kind to Fuller. I don't have the first day of law school, and even I could show that Fuller's opinion did not come close to reaching the standard required to deny Siegelman bond.
Curran does catch Horton with one glancing blow. In an article in the March 2008 issue of Harper's, "Vote Machine: How Republicans Hacked the Justice Department," Horton writes one sentence that could have been phrased more clearly. He writes, in reference to Siegelman co-defendant Richard Scrushy: "And finally, according to his own uncontradicted testimony, Scrushy didn't even want the appointment." As Horton writes in his response to Curran, it was the testimony of Alabama Power CEO Elmer Harris, on behalf of Scrushy. In legal terms, that makes it Scrushy's testimony, but Horton acknowledges the sentence should have been written with more clarity.
While Curran expends considerable energy trying to prove a "gotcha" on Horton, he is not so careful about his own writings. Curran claims that Horton, in the March 2008 Harper's story, says "Scrushy supported Riley over Siegelman in the 1998 election." This is ridiculous, of course, because Siegelman ran against Fob James, not Riley, in 1998. Curran seems to think he has scored major points with this. But he misquotes Horton's story. The story merely says Scrushy backed Riley, which is true, when Riley ran in 2002. The sentence says nothing about 1998.
Perhaps Curran's most awkward punch comes near the end--in the 15th round, you might say--when he tries to land a haymaker about William Horton, a Birmingham attorney who used to work at HealthSouth and now is at the Birmingham firm of Haskell Slaughter. Our guy Eddie puts on his sleuth hat and discovers that Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson is a Haskell Slaughter client and--hold onto your hats--William Horton is Scott Horton's second cousin!
Sweet Jezebel, what a scoop! But what is it supposed to mean? That the two Hortons and Jill Simpson have designed some sort of conspiracy to concoct testimony and free Don Siegelman?
Curran seems to be convinced of it, even though both Hortons state they are not in close or frequent contact. In fact, Bill Horton says he only recently learned that Scott Horton wrote for Harper's.
In the end, my Frazier-Ali analogy probably is not the right one. This bout was more like the 1982 match between Randall "Tex" Cobb and heavyweight champion Larry Holmes. Many have called it the most one-sided title fight in heavyweight history. Sportscaster Howard Cosell was so repulsed by the sight of Cobb's face being used as a punching bag for 15 rounds that he retired from boxing coverage.
So what did Curran hope to accomplish? Beats me. Anyone who has ever taken a reporting course in a journalism or communications curriculum knows that one of the first things you learn is: Don't make yourself part of the story. And at all costs, do your darnedest to maintain your objectivity--or at least the appearance of being objective.
Eddie Curran must have skipped class the days those lessons were taught. And so, apparently, did his bosses at the Mobile Press-Register. How the editors of that paper could allow one of their reporters to go off on a such a wild, one-sided, nonsensical, unprofessional rant is beyond me.
Eddie Curran should be sitting back and letting his reporting of the Siegelman story speak for itself. Or better yet, he should be taking a hard look at the flip side of the prosecution--the mounting evidence that the prosecution was politically motivated and legally unjust. And he should not be working on a book about the Siegelman prosecution until it is over--and given that a transcript has not even been prepared for the appeal, it certainly is not over.
If anything is crystal clear in Eddie Curran's writings, it is this: He desperately wants the Siegelman conviction to stand. And he is bitter that Scott Horton and Jill Simpson have caused serious questions to be raised about the case--and now those questions have been raised before a huge national audience by 60 Minutes.
With every wild punch he throws at Scott Horton, you can almost hear Curran thinking, "Dammit, you are ruining the market for my book, and I'm not going to let you get away with it."
What Curran should be saying is: "Great Murrow's Ghost, this Horton fellow is raising some interesting questions about the Siegelman case. And this Simpson woman is going out on a shaky limb for some reason. Better check it out."
That's how real journalists behave. But Eddie Curran evidently is not interested in real journalism--at least not now.
That filter turns out to be Harper's legal-affairs contributor Scott Horton, the target in part two of Curran's two-part op-ed piece on the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
"This piece, Part II of Curran's writings, is so overly critical of Mr. Horton, we have asked Mr. Horton to respond, which he has done," Martin writes in an editor's note. "His response is in all capital letters to distinguish from Eddie Curran's words. Most quotes are in italic."
Reading this piece reminds me of the Joe Frazier-Muhammad Ali bouts of the 1970s. Curran is like Frazier, snorting and snarling and firing left hooks and wild haymakers at every turn. Horton is like Ali, deftly dancing around the ring, firing jabs, and expertly fending off his attacker. At times, you can almost hear Horton (as Ali), saying, "Is that all you've got?"
That would be a good question for Curran. Another would be, "What are you trying to accomplish here?"
My Frazier-Ali analogy only goes so far. Those bouts were all close. Curran vs. Horton proves to be a one-sided decision for Horton. You get the feeling Horton could have landed a knockout blow at any point. But he lets it go the distance, curious to see what Curran will try next--and content to win handily on the judges' cards.
The punch that Curran throws repeatedly might be called the "Mark Fuller Special." Swinging from the heels, Curran lets it fly time after time, attacking Horton's accounts of U.S. Judge Mark Fuller and his curious legal/business dealings.
But Curran never comes close to landing his big blow. Perhaps that's because he violates one of the first laws of boxing: Know your opponent.
Curran contends that Horton says Fuller received government contracts as a result of bribes or payoffs. But, as Horton correctly states, that is not the point of his pieces. Rather, Horton's work shows, time after time, that Fuller does not come close to meeting the "appearance of impartiality" requirement of federal law, mainly because a significant chunk of his income, way beyond what he earns as a judge, is derived from government contracts--and the U.S. government is one of the party's in the Siegelman case.
Horton particularly draws Curran's ire with this passage from a January 8, 2008, post: "It seems that Fuller's business runs almost entirely from shadowy contracts awarded by the U.S. Government, prominently including the Department of Justice--that's right, the highly politicized agency which was prosecuting the Siegelman case in his court. And many of the other contracts came from the Department of Defense."
Curran goes into a swinging frenzy at this. "Can Horton or Harper's identify a single contract, such as through production of a single piece of paper, showing that either Doss Aviation or Doss of Alabama has even on contract . . . with the Department of Justice?"
You can almost hear Horton shrugging his shoulders as if to say, "Dude, I've already done that--and you would know it if you had bothered to read my work closely."
First, Curran alleges that Horton's piece says Doss' contracts are "primarily" with the Justice Department. Actually, the story says the contracts are "prominently" with Justice. Big difference.
And Horton cites two documents--a defense counsel's motion for recusal and an article in the Enterprise Ledger--that support his passages about Doss' contracts with the Justice Department. The Enterprise newspaper article specifically states that FBI agents are among the professionals all over the world who wear products made by a Doss company.
Curran is so intent on defending Fuller's honor that you would think they were twin brothers. At one point, Curran quotes former Alabama Attorney General Bill Baxley as saying, "Judge Fuller is one of the fairest judges I have ever known." Gee, this is a big surprise, and Martin gets to the point with this editor's note: "I know many lawyers, and it is rare that you find one who will not speak with lavish praise in public about a judge before whom he regularly practices."
In fact, as Jill Simpson stated in her Congressional testimony, Alabama lawyers can get in deep doo-doo for questioning the integrity of a judge--no matter how corrupt said judge might be. (Rule 8.2, Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct.)
Perhaps Curran should have consulted David G. Bronner, head of the Retirement Systems of Alabama (RSA) and widely considered one of the sharpest minds in the state. In fact, Curran wouldn't have needed to consult Bronner. The RSA chief has made his feelings about Fuller very clear--in print--saying that Fuller had tried to help a buddy "rip off" RSA.
Curran also might have wanted to consult Missouri attorney Paul Benton Weeks, who after extensive investigation of Fuller's activities, filed an affidavit with the Justice Department outlining actions by Fuller that are certainly improper and probably criminal. Weeks is a graduate of the University of Missouri and the University of Virginia School of Law, and his affidavit can be read here.
Curran's piece makes no mention of Weeks' insights. Perhaps he should contact the Missouri attorney to get information from someone who really knows what Mark Fuller is all about.
If I were Weeks though, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Curran's call. Our intrepid reporter evidently won't countenance any less-than-flattering words about Judge Fuller. Curran really gets riled when he notes Horton's criticism of Fuller's memorandum opinion explaining his decision to deny Siegelman bail pending appeal.
Horton said Fuller's opinion was "farcical" and reflected the work of a "third-rate legal mind." Horton was absolutely right; in fact, he was being kind to Fuller. I don't have the first day of law school, and even I could show that Fuller's opinion did not come close to reaching the standard required to deny Siegelman bond.
Curran does catch Horton with one glancing blow. In an article in the March 2008 issue of Harper's, "Vote Machine: How Republicans Hacked the Justice Department," Horton writes one sentence that could have been phrased more clearly. He writes, in reference to Siegelman co-defendant Richard Scrushy: "And finally, according to his own uncontradicted testimony, Scrushy didn't even want the appointment." As Horton writes in his response to Curran, it was the testimony of Alabama Power CEO Elmer Harris, on behalf of Scrushy. In legal terms, that makes it Scrushy's testimony, but Horton acknowledges the sentence should have been written with more clarity.
While Curran expends considerable energy trying to prove a "gotcha" on Horton, he is not so careful about his own writings. Curran claims that Horton, in the March 2008 Harper's story, says "Scrushy supported Riley over Siegelman in the 1998 election." This is ridiculous, of course, because Siegelman ran against Fob James, not Riley, in 1998. Curran seems to think he has scored major points with this. But he misquotes Horton's story. The story merely says Scrushy backed Riley, which is true, when Riley ran in 2002. The sentence says nothing about 1998.
Perhaps Curran's most awkward punch comes near the end--in the 15th round, you might say--when he tries to land a haymaker about William Horton, a Birmingham attorney who used to work at HealthSouth and now is at the Birmingham firm of Haskell Slaughter. Our guy Eddie puts on his sleuth hat and discovers that Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson is a Haskell Slaughter client and--hold onto your hats--William Horton is Scott Horton's second cousin!
Sweet Jezebel, what a scoop! But what is it supposed to mean? That the two Hortons and Jill Simpson have designed some sort of conspiracy to concoct testimony and free Don Siegelman?
Curran seems to be convinced of it, even though both Hortons state they are not in close or frequent contact. In fact, Bill Horton says he only recently learned that Scott Horton wrote for Harper's.
In the end, my Frazier-Ali analogy probably is not the right one. This bout was more like the 1982 match between Randall "Tex" Cobb and heavyweight champion Larry Holmes. Many have called it the most one-sided title fight in heavyweight history. Sportscaster Howard Cosell was so repulsed by the sight of Cobb's face being used as a punching bag for 15 rounds that he retired from boxing coverage.
So what did Curran hope to accomplish? Beats me. Anyone who has ever taken a reporting course in a journalism or communications curriculum knows that one of the first things you learn is: Don't make yourself part of the story. And at all costs, do your darnedest to maintain your objectivity--or at least the appearance of being objective.
Eddie Curran must have skipped class the days those lessons were taught. And so, apparently, did his bosses at the Mobile Press-Register. How the editors of that paper could allow one of their reporters to go off on a such a wild, one-sided, nonsensical, unprofessional rant is beyond me.
Eddie Curran should be sitting back and letting his reporting of the Siegelman story speak for itself. Or better yet, he should be taking a hard look at the flip side of the prosecution--the mounting evidence that the prosecution was politically motivated and legally unjust. And he should not be working on a book about the Siegelman prosecution until it is over--and given that a transcript has not even been prepared for the appeal, it certainly is not over.
If anything is crystal clear in Eddie Curran's writings, it is this: He desperately wants the Siegelman conviction to stand. And he is bitter that Scott Horton and Jill Simpson have caused serious questions to be raised about the case--and now those questions have been raised before a huge national audience by 60 Minutes.
With every wild punch he throws at Scott Horton, you can almost hear Curran thinking, "Dammit, you are ruining the market for my book, and I'm not going to let you get away with it."
What Curran should be saying is: "Great Murrow's Ghost, this Horton fellow is raising some interesting questions about the Siegelman case. And this Simpson woman is going out on a shaky limb for some reason. Better check it out."
That's how real journalists behave. But Eddie Curran evidently is not interested in real journalism--at least not now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)